Cicero Challenges Christianity and Islam

[Pontifex Maximus]

I'd like to take a moment to discuss a passage of Marcus Cicero that flies in the face of two of the great religions of the modern era. Although the Romans aren't particularly known for their philosophical achievements as much as the Greeks are, Cicero makes an effort to draw upon famous Greek philosophers of his day in his book De Legibus. While reading through this the other night one paragraph stood out in particular.

What shall we say of generosity? Is it a free gift, or does it look for some reward? If it is kindness with no thought of recompense, it is a free gift; if it is kindness expecting a return, it is merely a paid service. Certainly a person who deserves a reputation for generosity or kindness acts to do his duty, not to promote his own advantage. So justice too looks for no reward or profit; we choose it for its own sake. The same may be said of all th virtues and of our opinions of them. If we desired goodness for its reward rather than for itself alone, the only virtue in that attitude would properly be called shrewdness. For the more a man considers his own interest in what he does, the less good he is; those who measure virtue by its rewars think nothing is good unless it is shrewd.

The implications this has on the character of christian morals is profound, especially when considering these passages.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Mt. 19:20ff. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

I am stepping out on a limb here, but according to Cicero, then, any sort of charity work that christians perform is not actually kindness at all, but a selfish act of pure self interest. Since christians expect a reward they can't be considered t be exercising a virtue of kindness that many churches claim to be acting out of. All of this is due to the fact that a reward is promised in heaven, as if entry to heaven isn't enough.

Here's the part I really find interesting. Many a time in my discussions with theists, agnostics, or even some christians, they say to me that belief in god is worth it because if there is a god, you win, but if there isn't a god, you don't lose anything. Cicero would lump these individuals in with the other christians and call them shrewd. They are in it purely for their own interests, not for the greater good or for the sake of being kind. Sure, I bet there are some christians who would do kind things for others without any reward, as a matter of fact there are atheist organizations that do that anyway. Now, which is a greater act of kindness, someone who volunteers to build houses for the poor with no thought of a reward, or someone who begins a volunteer project anticipating compensation in some form? For me it is the former.

I'm theorizing here that any charity work christians do is completely selfish and motivated by self interest, which can hardly be called charity at all. This ranges from dropping a quarter in a homeless man's empty cup or spending your entire life administering to the poor in Bombay.

So, ironically, while christians may think they hold a monopoly on morality, quite the opposite may be true in this philosophical setting.

In Islam the same holds true. Charity is a pillar of Islam, which is supported by the following Quranic passage:

"Alms are for the poor and the needy; and those employed to administer (the funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom"

Islam offers salvation in heaven by Allah if muslims follow the tenets of Islam during their lifetime on earth (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore muslims fall into the same trap here. Any charity they do in the name of Islam is automatically mitigated by the fact that they seek some sort of reward.

Discuss.

[tarvu]

I'd like to take a moment to discuss a passage of Marcus Cicero that flies in the face of two of the great religions of the modern era. Although the Romans aren't particularly known for their philosophical achievements as much as the Greeks are, Cicero makes an effort to draw upon famous Greek philosophers of his day in his book De Legibus. While reading through this the other night one paragraph stood out in particular.



The implications this has on the character of christian morals is profound, especially when considering these passages.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Mt. 19:20ff. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

I am stepping out on a limb here, but according to Cicero, then, any sort of charity work that christians perform is not actually kindness at all, but a selfish act of pure self interest. Since christians expect a reward they can't be considered t be exercising a virtue of kindness that many churches claim to be acting out of. All of this is due to the fact that a reward is promised in heaven, as if entry to heaven isn't enough.

Here's the part I really find interesting. Many a time in my discussions with theists, agnostics, or even some christians, they say to me that belief in god is worth it because if there is a god, you win, but if there isn't a god, you don't lose anything. Cicero would lump these individuals in with the other christians and call them shrewd. They are in it purely for their own interests, not for the greater good or for the sake of being kind. Sure, I bet there are some christians who would do kind things for others without any reward, as a matter of fact there are atheist organizations that do that anyway. Now, which is a greater act of kindness, someone who volunteers to build houses for the poor with no thought of a reward, or someone who begins a volunteer project anticipating compensation in some form? For me it is the former.

I'm theorizing here that any charity work christians do is completely selfish and motivated by self interest, which can hardly be called charity at all. This ranges from dropping a quarter in a homeless man's empty cup or spending your entire life administering to the poor in Bombay.

So, ironically, while christians may think they hold a monopoly on morality, quite the opposite may be true in this philosophical setting.

In Islam the same holds true. Charity is a pillar of Islam, which is supported by the following Quranic passage:

"Alms are for the poor and the needy; and those employed to administer (the funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom"

Islam offers salvation in heaven by Allah if muslims follow the tenets of Islam during their lifetime on earth (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore muslims fall into the same trap here. Any charity they do in the name of Islam is automatically mitigated by the fact that they seek some sort of reward.

Discuss.

Hate to do it on the first post but you are wrong. Good deeds are not requisite for one's entrance to heaven in either Islam or Christianity merely acceptance of the beliefs and repentance.

Christians and Muslims do not have to do charitable work, many choose to in an attempt to be better Christians, Muslims, or simply people. The description of heaven is very vague, I don't believe in it personally as an atheist, but one would think that "heaven" is a pretty good reward in itself without needing to vie for favor of the almighty by being the ideal Christian/Muslim.

Cicero lived his words though, which is why other than the legacy they left he was pretty much a bum and a coward.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Hate to do it on the first post but you are wrong. Good deeds are not requisite for one's entrance to heaven in either Islam or Christianity merely acceptance of the beliefs and repentance.

That's a protestant outlook, which is in itself inconsistent with christian theology. Luther got a lot of things right, but salvation by faith alone is in direct conflict with passages in the bible (supposedly) spoken by Jesus.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

Mathew 16:27:

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

Though as an aside I'd love to hear how you justify that claim in spite of what is written in the bible you read. I love playing devil's advocate for the orthodox position.

Cicero lived his words though, which is why other than the legacy they left he was pretty much a bum and a coward.

Oh come now, you don't know the first thing about Cicero if that is your assessment of his life.

[tarvu]

That's a protestant outlook, which is in itself inconsistent with christian theology. Luther got a lot of things right, but salvation by faith alone is in direct conflict with passages in the bible (supposedly) spoken by Jesus.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

Mathew 16:27:



Though as an aside I'd love to hear how you justify that claim in spite of what is written in the bible you read. I love playing devil's advocate for the orthodox position.


Oh come now, you don't know the first thing about Cicero if that is your assessment of his life.

I was raised Catholic, it is most certainly a Catholic outlook as well. You know confession, baptism, all that jazz. No where in the bible does it say you must be perfect, in fact it says you are definitely not free from sin and your only path to salvation is through repentance of sin and acceptance of ____.

I know plenty about Cicero, he was a coward and he was a bum. Albeit a well spoken one from a nice family, his political accomplishments aside (political accomplishments being of course no accomplishment at all) he did little but prattle.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I was raised Catholic, it is most certainly a Catholic outlook as well. You know confession, baptism, all that jazz. No where in the bible does it say you must be perfect, in fact it says you are definitely not free from sin and your only path to salvation is through repentance of sin and acceptance of ____.

I'd love to see scriptural support for that or scholarly interpretation along those lines. So far you don't have any support and I know you are wrong.

I know plenty about Cicero, he was a coward and he was a bum. Albeit a well spoken one from a nice family, his political accomplishments aside (political accomplishments being of course no accomplishment at all) he did little but prattle.

Perhaps you choose to forget about the Catiline revolt which he suppressed during his consulship, his consolidation of the province of Cilicia which included at least three pitched battles, his hundreds of cases, his mentoring of prominent Roman youth least of all Caelius, his quaestorship in Sicily, and his lifelong crusade to rid the Res Publica of provincial corruption, and his role as leading citizen while Antony, Octavius, and Brutus were out fighting in the north. And he wasn't from a nice family at all, he was a homo novo from a middle class family from Arpinum.

[tarvu]

I'd love to see scriptural support for that or scholarly interpretation along those lines. So far you don't have any support and I know you are wrong.

Really? So you think that every practicing Christian and Muslim out there strives to live one hundred percent according the teachings of their faith, and that once they inevitably fail at this task they believe they are damned for eternity?

Perhaps you choose to forget about the Catiline revolt which he suppressed during his consulship, his consolidation of the province of Cilicia which included at least three pitched battles, his hundreds of cases, his mentoring of prominent Roman youth least of all Caelius, his quaestorship in Sicily, and his lifelong crusade to rid the Res Publica of provincial corruption, and his role as leading citizen while Antony, Octavius, and Brutus were out fighting in the north. And he wasn't from a nice family at all, he was a homo novo from a middle class family from Arpinum.

Please Cicero the general, haha spare me. He was a politician, politicians in Rome sometimes won battles it doesn't make them brave.

Also his role as a leading citizen while Antony, OCtavius and Brutus were fighting in the north, are you serious this is an example of his bravery? Yes what did Cicero have to gain by staying in Rome and garnering more support for himself among the elites there?

I would hardly call his family middle class. Middle class? This is Rome; his family did not have the stature of some, but it was hardly out of the strata of the dominant class at the time.

[SigniferOne]

That's a protestant outlook

Well I was going to write a whole post but that's unnecessary now, I'm glad you recognize that the view you advance has already been shared by a whole half of Western Christianity.

which is in itself inconsistent with christian theology.

I would be a little careful with so off-handedly dismissing Luther, just as you were when others just dismissed Cicero (whom I admire also). These men were kind of gigantic, while we're small, so let's have the humility to at least ask how their views could be reconciled with our objections rather than asserting that they're all obviously wrong and we right.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

This speaks of rewards of each man once he is in heaven. With regards to getting into heaven, salvation, by faith alone is the scripturally substantiated view:


Titus 3:5: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Philippians 3:9: "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

Romans 11:6: "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Romans 3:28: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without works."

[Pontifex Maximus]

I would be a little careful with so off-handedly dismissing Luther, just as you were when others just dismissed Cicero (whom I admire also). These men were kind of gigantic, while we're small, so let's have the humility to at least ask how their views could be reconciled with our objections rather than asserting that they're all obviously wrong and we right.

Oh trust me, in any other scenario I'd be singing Luther's praises. He was a revolutionary who did a lot to advance thinking past the rigid stubbornness of the church of his day.

This speaks of rewards of each man once he is in heaven. With regards to getting into heaven, salvation, by faith alone is the scripturally substantiated view:
*verses deleted to save space*

So at best the bible is conflicting, but at worst no discernible answer can be given. For the sake of argument, then, let's assume good works are necessary. I'm not interested in a debate as to whether or not good works are required for entry into heaven, because frankly I don't care. It isn't exactly on my to do list.

[SigniferOne]

So at best the bible is conflicting, but at worst no discernible answer can be given.

Again, it is not so difficult if you're willing to allow for distinctions. God judges men based on merit in heaven. But the means of salvation is faith alone, for to work 'towards' heaven via works would indeed be immoral, at least amoral, and in general mercenary and highly unsavory.

Thus if a Christian expects Christianity to be true and the Bible be a revelation of God, he would expect the Bible to hold precisely the view which forbids mercenary works. And lo and behold, it does.

For the sake of argument, then, let's assume good works are necessary.

I'm confused. I thought your whole condemnation rested on the assumption that the Bible encouraged mercenary works? Now we see clearly that it doesn't. But it does argue that works are necessary, not as the means for salvation (which would be mercenary), but as an expression of inner holiness for a man who is a true Christian. Thus to be a Christian and yet produce no good works would be impossible, and the Bible says that such a man wasn't a Christian in the first place. Thus works are important, but not in the mercenary way which you rightly condemn.

[Winter]

Cicero was one of the bravest politicians of his era. Even a cursory understanding of history would tell you that.

[tarvu]

Cicero was one of the bravest politicians of his era. Even a cursory understanding of history would tell you that.

Shrewd opportunist perhaps, but I think that a few notable Pompeian backers might take offense to him being called one of the bravest of his era.

[conon394]

I know plenty about Cicero, he was a coward and he was a bum

Not according to Octavian "A learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his country".

[tarvu]

Not according to Octavian "A learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his country".

Well gee if Octavian who Cicero as one of the most popular politicians in Rome supported against Marc Anthony during a crucial point in the power struggle between them says he was a good guy....

Wait a minute....

[Pontifex Maximus]

I suppose it's better for someone to give to charity out of pure self interest than to keep it all to themselves out of pure self interest.

I agree with you, but from an ideological standpoint it defeats the purpose.

Shrewd opportunist perhaps, but I think that a few notable Pompeian backers might take offense to him being called one of the bravest of his era.

The Pompeians were happy to have Cicero on their side. He lent great legitimacy to their cause.

Well gee if Octavian who Cicero as one of the most popular politicians in Rome supported against Marc Anthony during a crucial point in the power struggle between them says he was a good guy....

Wait a minute....

Octavian tried to intercede for Cicero, but Antonius was adamant. Lepidus let his brother be proscribed. Antonius hated Cicero because of the Phillipics. Do you know what the Phillipics are?

[tarvu]

I agree with you, but from an ideological standpoint it defeats the purpose.



The Pompeians were happy to have Cicero on their side. He lent great legitimacy to their cause.

Until he returned to Rome.

Octavian tried to intercede for Cicero, but Antonius was adamant. Lepidus let his brother be proscribed. Antonius hated Cicero because of the Phillipics. Do you know what the Phillipics are?

Umm yeah I am aware that Cicero quite notably blasted Marc Antony. Of course this pleased Octavian who wished power for himself. It is hardly proof of Cicero's character, or really of Octavian's belief in such character.


Originally Posted by tarvu
Really? So you think that every practicing Christian and Muslim out there strives to live one hundred percent according the teachings of their faith, and that once they inevitably fail at this task they believe they are damned for eternity?

Um, yes? Why else would they practice their faith?

You really don't understand faith and religion at all do you. Oh, to be born and raised without religion. Everyone fails in that quest, but yet they still remain faithful to their beliefs. If they truly thought they were damned wouldn't they abandon them or simply despair?

Because he acted within the remit of his proconsular powers and didn't try to bring his army back to march on Rome, he was not a good general, right? After Crassus was defeated at Currae, Cicero was faced with the real possibility of a Parthian expedition into his province, which he prepared for by doubling his forces and bringing to heel leftover pirate rebels Pompeius didn't mop up.

He showed good judgment in a trying situation, that does not make him of good character.

He was singlehandedly responsible for making sure the government ran smoothly in their absence. Seriously? When official senatorial decisions were passed down, not even the consuls read them to the people. Cicero went to the rostra and the people begged him to tell them what has been decided.

Wow well singlehandedly gives him a bit too much credit, but he did most miraculously know his way around the senate having been consul. praetor, and quastor and been in the Roman government for decades.

The story of him going to the Rostra is something if it is really true and not a historical embellishment, but in Roman politics such populist actions were generally not without selfish motivation of their own (oh the irony). I'd hardly paint Cicero as a man of the people.

Do you know where Arpinum is?

What is with the trivia? Yes, and do you know that Cicero is hardly the only prominent Roman politician of the era to be from the Municipium or even Arpinum. He was not middle class simply because he was not nobility of the highest order, why don't you look up that term (middle class).

[Helm]

I suppose it's better for someone to give to charity out of pure self interest than to keep it all to themselves out of pure self interest.

[conon394]

Well gee if Octavian who Cicero as one of the most popular politicians in Rome supported against Marc Anthony says he was a good guy....

Wait a minute....

And when he made the comment there was no reason to worry about Cicero any more the Civil war long done, perhapse you care to lay out an argument for Cicero as bum and coward?

but I think that a few notable Pompeian backers might take offense to him being called one of the bravest of his era.

And who frankly in Roman politics at the end of Republic in a major role could not be called an opportunist shrewd or non shrew(->dead).

[tarvu]

And when he made the comment there was no reason to worry about Cicero any more the Civil war long done, perhapse you care to lay out an argument for Cicero as bum and coward?

And who frankly in Roman politics at the end of Republic in a major role could not be called an opportunist shrewd or non shrew(->dead).

Many in Roman republican politics could be called an opportunist, and of these Cicero is no exception.

Do you think that Octavian really had no sense at all of need for the support of the people, and (in Cicero's case) more importantly the senate and its constituency? He was not daft, why would he discard such an important and respected supporter?

The evidence for Cicero's cowardice and bummery is quite clear in his history as a statesmen, a long list of inconsistencies and indecision. He was incredibly weak minded and impressionable and that is his true legacy, and that is why he was long remembered and exalted by Rome: for those most virtuous qualities in a Roman senator.

[SigniferOne]

Can we ignore the troll please? I don't think he would be even able to spell "Phillipics" or "Catilinarian Conspiracy" correctly.

[conon394]

The evidence for Cicero's cowardice and bummery is quite clear in his history as a statesmen, a long list of inconsistencies and indecision. He was incredibly weak minded and impressionable and that is his true legacy, and that is why he was long remembered and exalted by Rome: for those most virtuous qualities in a Roman senator.

So set out some examples - again you can find opportunism, mistakes, vacillation ans weak-mindedness across the board. Do mean just a politician or as a jurist/lawyer or what?