Judeo-Christian Ethics; The Gift That Keeps on Giving

[Moxie]

Jefferiah your post are a delight to read, thank you for your thoughtful posts.

I'm not a Christian but I see the hatred and cruelty hurled at them daily on left forums such as this one. The left under the guise of being a Liberal are no such thing, they are hard core socialist. They use their hateful words, like racists, bigot, hater is their latest buzz word to shut up anyone who does not fall into lock step with their twisted beliefs (they have none other than control of this country for a life time and the Christian Right stands in their way), they pretend to be the most tolerant members in society but yet they hurl intolerance and hatred at religious people. Why is that? Not only are they hurling words of pure hatred on this forum but they do so with impunity. The Human Rights Commission handles mostly complaints from over sensitive Gays who cry at the drop of the hat, when did hurt feelings become hate? So another communist government run organization is allowed to Persecute Christian under the guise of hate and this is acceptable.

When the sheeple finally wake up and realise that the kuzadds are what's wrong with society not Christians. Her hatred and lack of beliefs are not a positive in a democratic society, she wreaths in glee when she sees someone suffer. I have no issue with those who declair Homosexuality a Sin, they have a right to their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution from Government run Organizations like HRC. This country has become so dictorial it's frightening, crush the left and we will have a much warmer and open society. I may not be religious but the left/left are as close to evil as I hope to ever get.

[kuzadd]

Jefferiah your post are a delight to read, thank you for your thoughtful posts.

When the sheeple finally wake up and realise that the kuzadds are what's wrong with society not Christians. Her hatred and lack of beliefs are not a positive in a democratic society, she wreaths in glee when she sees someone suffer. I have no issue with those who declair Homosexuality a Sin, they have a right to their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution from Government run Organizations like HRC. This country has become so dictorial it's frightening, crush the left and we will have a much warmer and open society. I may not be religious but the left/left are as close to evil as I hope to ever get.

"Her hatred and lack of beliefs are not a positive in a democratic society,"

Oh too hilarious!!!

Hmmmm, no hatred and my lack of beliefs are a total plus in a democratic society as to fanaticism in a intolerant society?

"she wreaths in glee when she sees someone suffer. "

The word your looking for is actually writhes.

when have you ever SEEN me writhing in glee???

In fact when have you actually ever seen me???

more non-credible nonsense, and personal smear jobs from Moxie!

Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW: for a non-christian you do seem smitten with the christian right

Edited August 13, 2007 by kuzadd

[Drea]

This country has become so dictorial it's frightening, crush the left and we will have a much warmer and open society. I may not be religious but the left/left are as close to evil as I hope to ever get.

And name ONE thing that has been dictated to you. One thing (good god don't bring up paying taxes!) that you have been forced to do by the "left".

I am not a "lefty" by the way (as you and I have agreed on a topic or two) I am a centrist. What is a centrist? Socially liberal, economically conservative.

And how are you so different than how you propose Kuzadd is?

You are full of hatred for the "left".

Admit it, religion divides people.

Humanitarians such as Kuzadd and myself don't call others "evil" simply because they don't believe in the "flavour of the day" religious doctrine. On the contrary, we are all FOR individual human rights.

I have said right out that I would see religion banned in the public. Worship at home or church but don't bring crazy (yes crazy, but not evil) beliefs into gov't or schools.

[AndrewL]

There is a solid argument for adhering to fundamental Judaeo-Christian teachings. Those who stray eventually pay".

How does one define fundamental Judeo-Christian teachings?

Andrew

Edited August 13, 2007 by AndrewL

[CLRV]

How does one define fundamental Judeo-Christian teachings?

Andrew

Simple.

Any scriptural quote that justifies your disapproval of another person is adhered to with doctrincal strictness. Any that invalidate your disapproval or expose it as mere bigotry shall be rigorously ignored.

[AndrewL]

Simple.

Any scriptural quote that justifies your disapproval of another person is adhered to with doctrincal strictness. Any that invalidate your disapproval or expose it as mere bigotry shall be rigorously ignored.

To quote Bill Maher: "If you are going to pick out all the raisins, why buy raisin bread?"

Andrew

[jefferiah]

Simple.

Any scriptural quote that justifies your disapproval of another person is adhered to with doctrincal strictness. Any that invalidate your disapproval or expose it as mere bigotry shall be rigorously ignored.

Now CLRV you are saying something which is not based in fact. I already explained to you why this is wrong, and you continue to go on in this vain. Believing something is a sin and professing that belief does not mean you hate someone else or view yourself as a better person.

That fact that we focused on one sin in our argument is because Cybercoma used that one as an example of bigotry. And I explained that having a moral belief about something is not bigotry. It is possible that people who do have a moral belief about something can act like bigots about it and view themselves as better, but A is not always B. Like the child who is on drugs. Some people call him a dirty rotten scoundrel and use it as an excuse to trample him----in the words of Kris Kristofferson---"someone doing something dirty decent folks can frown on". And they believe that drugs are wrong, bad, immoral, etc. But the childs parents also believe that drug use is bad, but they love their child nonetheless and they don't see him as something dirty. They want him to stop using drugs, but it does not mean they hate him. They are not happy about having someone to put down, they have an actual concern for their child.

Or as another example (one which I have used to death on this forum), I ate some pork chops yesterday. Alot of Jews believe pork is unclean. I did once hear a Jewish person on a chat room say something about unclean pagan pork eating Christians. You know something like that might fall into the line of being judgemental. But it didnt bother me. And other than that I never experience this from Jewish people. So just because someone has a moral belief on pork eating does not mean that they hate me. It's not bigotry to believe that something is wrong. And for Jews to share this belief they must have some way to communicate it, to each other and to prospective Judaism converts. So if people of the pork eating orientation got together and said we find this rule offensive and we wish to stop them from saying that pork eating is wrong because we are offended, then Jews would no longer be able to communicate their belief. Even if it is only one small belief, it is one part of Judaism and it is important to be able to maintain that among other things. I don't think this is the main focal point of Judaism, but if ever such an attempt were made by society to ban the expression of this belief (no matter how small it may seem to you) I am sure Jews would begin focusing on their right to profess it. And of course they should. We live in a free society----at least I think we do.

As for the specialness of the Jews, you mean to say that being of a particular race does not make you special, it is who one is and what one does, etc. Well I think that is precisely why the Jewish people were chosen. If you read the Bible there is a line, father to son. And the patriarchs had multiple children, and the good children were always the chosen. Abraham was chosen. He had Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was chosen because he was more humble, while Ishmael was mean to him. Then Isaac had Jacob and Esau. Jacob was chosen because he was quiet and humble and he valued spiritual matters more than a bowl of soup. When someone else is chosen you must accept it. And it will work out well for you if you do. God blessed the Jews so that thereby they might bless the world. Look at the story of Jacob's children. Joseph began having dreams from God about his future greatness. When he spoke of them his brother's became jealous of his chosenness. But the fact that he was chosen did not mean Joseph was mean to them. Rather they were mean to him and sold him as a slave. And the fact that Joseph was chosen turned out to be a good thing. He was chosen to save his entire family. God trusted Joseph with his blessing because he knew Joseph could be trusted to disperse that blessing. Being chosen is not a position of absolute tyrannical power. It is a position of great responsibility. And outside the Hebrew community there were societies of child sacrifice and corruption. But if any of these outsiders were faithful and did what was right they were counted among the Jews. Rahab the prostitute is a good example. Caleb was not Jewish but was actually a descendant of Esau. But he became accepted among the Jewish people.

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[CLRV]

I haven't ignored it. I've considered it. Discussed it with you. Slept on it and now I've rejected it.

[sucker punch]

I haven't ignored it. I've considered it. Discussed it with you. Slept on it and now I've rejected it.

You forgot to pray on it.

[CLRV]

You forgot to pray on it.

Oh, thanks for reminding me. By now I should have mentioned that I see someone who scoffs aloofly about spiritual matters and someone who says God hates fags as two sides of the same close-minded coin.

[M.Dancer]

Apparently the term Judeo Christian ethos is rather young. It used to be simply the Christain ethos but during the war it was ammended for obvious political reasons. Not withstanding it is a fact of history that our moral system shares a large part of its whole from jewish and christian canon.

[jefferiah]

Oh, thanks for reminding me. By now I should have mentioned that I see someone who scoffs aloofly about spiritual matters and someone who says God hates fags as two sides of the same close-minded coin.

Ah but who said this. I said homosexuality is a sin. God hates sin. I also sin. You are putting words in people's mouths.

Edited August 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[NovaScotian]

This country has become so dictorial it's frightening, crush the left and we will have a much warmer and open society. I may not be religious but the left/left are as close to evil as I hope to ever get.

Do you listen to yourself??? You sound like the biggest hypocrite. You say our country is becoming "so dictatorial" it is frightening and then suggest to "crush" a whole group of people that don't agree with you.

The left may be misguided in somethings, but "evil"? That is a huge leap. I'd say there are plenty more "evils" in the world.

[NovaScotian]

Ah but who said this. I said homosexuality is a sin. God hates sin. I also sin. You are putting words in people's mouths.

But what defines a "sin" and who defines homosexuality as one? Why should a person in the 21st century use a book written two or three THOUSAND years old for a moral code? We can all understand why killing or rape would be a bad thing. Why SHOULD homosexuality be a sin?

[sucker punch]

But what defines a "sin" and who defines homosexuality as one? Why should a person in the 21st century use a book written two or three THOUSAND years old for a moral code? We can all understand why killing or rape would be a bad thing. Why SHOULD homosexuality be a sin?

Come on now. Common sense? Logic? Critical thinking? Don't bring those into a religious/moral debate!

Blind faith is the only thing applicable here.

[jefferiah]

But what defines a "sin" and who defines homosexuality as one? Why should a person in the 21st century use a book written two or three THOUSAND years old for a moral code? We can all understand why killing or rape would be a bad thing. Why SHOULD homosexuality be a sin?

Well, to this, I must respond that if you do not like the formulation you do not have to adhere to it. I firmly believe that Christ would have considered it a sin. If you disagree I cannot change that. I am not trying to bash anyone or attack anyone. This is just my belief. If you do not like this definition of sin I have no control over that. There are many moral issues where people have different beliefs. Having a belief is not a crime nor should it be. A crime is a crime. Therefore if someone believes that homosexuality is a sin, but does not commit a violent act or incite a violent act against gays simply for being gay, then there should be no problem.

You will no doubt come back at me with something like...."Yes but if some people think it is wrong they may not be kind and may act violent." That is a shame. But the amount of persecution something receives is not justification for removing the moral itself, which does not demand a violent response. If there were a certain faction of women who took it upon themselves to violently avenge themselves on cheating husbands, I would not expect all women to then say "Adultery is good and acceptable." simply because adulterers are experiencing violence. The crime is not the idea that adultery is bad. The crime is the violence. The proper way is to say "Yes, this is wrong, but also so is violence."

Who decides that meat eating is a sin? I can tell you that some people do. And believing that does not change my life as a meat eater. They are allowed to say it and promote it. As long as there is no criminal action taken against meat eaters there is no need to prosecute it. If and when that happens you prosecute the offenders, not people who believe meat eating is wrong. Some people have very strong views about smoking, and yet it does not mean that they hate smokers or cannot be friends with them.

This brings us to one of the problems with many gay rights or other minority lobby groups. I am not sure if this is what JBG had in mind, but for me it is the defintion of what is a basic human right. It seems that now they define it as their right to have their actions condoned. This is not a basic human right. No one has the right to mandate that everyone should morally agree with you. The right to be gay is one thing. But there should be no right which says everyone must condone it. One's human rights end where someone else's begins. The fact that people believe it is wrong should be no obstruction whatsoever. The law allows me a legal right to drink alcohol (a right I don't exercise very often, cuz I tend to get sick easily). But it is not my right to force teetotalers to think drinking is ok, or to silence their moral opinion on the matter. If a teetotaler takes it upon himself, out of hatred for drinkers, to beat drinkers up, then that would be a criminal act. But merely expressing a moral opinion about the drinking cannot stop someone from drinking. You cannot force everyone in life to agree with you.

Edited August 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

Therefore if someone believes that homosexuality is a sin, but does not commit a violent act or incite a violent act against gays simply for being gay, then there should be no problem.

That's not the problem, the problem is when someone's religious convictions leads them to deny two people who are in love with each other the same rights as any other two people who are in love with each other simply because they are gay. When the churches were pressuring MPs like Joe Comartin not to support same-sex marriages, that's when we have a problem. If the religious would keep their antiquated moral code and their fantasies about the will of a ghost in the sky to themselves there wouldn't be a problem. But that doesn't happen, does it? Instead, the religious were screaming from the top of the mountain to deny homosexuals the right to marry and therefore equality before the law because they think their God and their idea of that God's will is the correct one and everyone else should follow it.

No one is asking you to accept homosexuality, no one is asking you to be a homosexual... so do all the homosexuals a favour and stop asking them to be heterosexual and stop asking them to accept your faith based opinions.

Edited August 13, 2007 by cybercoma

[jbg]

How does one define fundamental Judeo-Christian teachings?

Simple.

Any scriptural quote that justifies your disapproval of another person is adhered to with doctrincal strictness. Any that invalidate your disapproval or expose it as mere bigotry shall be rigorously ignored.

Andrew

Andrew, surely you're too smart to not have some basic idea of the answer.

Well, it's the culture that makes us a coherent society and the Middle East (ex-Israel) a steaming mass of camel dung and flaming buildings.

Edited August 14, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

You forgot to pray on it.

The Muslims do that (sometimes with clean feet washed in footbaths [link]) five times a day.

[jefferiah]

No one is asking you to accept homosexuality, no one is asking you to be a homosexual... so do all the homosexuals a favour and stop asking them to be heterosexual and stop asking them to accept your faith based opinions.

Now Cybercoma when did I ask people not to be gay? Show me where I asked this.

Also I pointed out to you that, yes, it is quite true that homosexual activists demand that you accept it. There are human rights cases concerning this. One concerns a Reverend who wrote to a newspaper editorial complaining about the fact that it is taught to children in schools, and that his tax dollars go to fund gay groups. Whether or not you agree with these things is irrelevant. Should he have to pay $5000 for expressing his views. Or also there is the case of the man who was asked his views in an interview, which I already outlined for you. He said I believe they deserve to be treated like anyone else, however I am Catholic and I feel it is a sin. He was sued for 1000. How did he violate someone's human rights by saying this? Gay people can still be gay, in spite of what he said. It is not a basic human right that people should have to condone things. The only right that was violated was one man's right to free speech and freedom of conscience.

[Moxie]

Do you listen to yourself??? You sound like the biggest hypocrite. You say our country is becoming "so dictatorial" it is frightening and then suggest to "crush" a whole group of people that don't agree with you.

The left may be misguided in somethings, but "evil"? That is a huge leap. I'd say there are plenty more "evils" in the world.

Nope evil is accurate, you scream and snot and bawl when you don't get your own way. You are evil, when I say crush I'm talking about an election not using a group of voters to do your dirty work Grasshopper. Nice try with the hypocrite thang thou, but you lost your ability to insult with racist, bigot and lol the latest from the retarded left Fear. Carry on with your left/left socialist tripe thou, if it walks like a duck it's a duck. If I dig a hole the left/left have made it clear I can't fill that hole without their permission. You are losing with your intolerance of anyone elses beliefs, personal attacks and grammer policeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee are your friends snicker.

[cybercoma]

Now Cybercoma when did I ask people not to be gay? Show me where I asked this.

Also I pointed out to you that, yes, it is quite true that homosexual activists demand that you accept it. There are human rights cases concerning this. One concerns a Reverend who wrote to a newspaper editorial complaining about the fact that it is taught to children in schools, and that his tax dollars go to fund gay groups. Whether or not you agree with these things is irrelevant. Should he have to pay $5000 for expressing his views. Or also there is the case of the man who was asked his views in an interview, which I already outlined for you. He said I believe they deserve to be treated like anyone else, however I am Catholic and I feel it is a sin. He was sued for 1000. How did he violate someone's human rights by saying this? Gay people can still be gay, in spite of what he said. It is not a basic human right that people should have to condone things. The only right that was violated was one man's right to free speech and freedom of conscience.

I need a reference to the court case to better understand where you're coming from...

[jbg]

Apparently the term Judeo Christian ethos is rather young. It used to be simply the Christain ethos but during the war it was ammended for obvious political reasons. Not withstanding it is a fact of history that our moral system shares a large part of its whole from jewish and christian canon.

I agree. Some would prefer to reinvent the wheel, with possibly deformed and disastrous results.

[kuzadd]

personally speaking, If there is a 'God' all knowing ,omni-potent,creator, he is going to be really pissed at people who've supported war, discrimination and destroyed his creations.

Including ALL the people who were made in his image.

That ain't me!

[AndrewL]

AndrewAndrew, surely you're too smart to not have some basic idea of the answer.

Well, it's the culture that makes us a coherent society and the Middle East (ex-Israel) a steaming mass of camel dung and flaming buildings.

No i don't know what these morals are supposed to be. I mean, i consider myself to be as moral and ethical as the next guy, but i certainly don't subscribe to any religion, and i have never once in my life based any moral or ethical principle I follow on anything written in the Torah or the bible. So what exactly is fundamental Judeo-Christian morality and how does it differ from secular morality?

Andrew