Judeo-Christian Ethics; The Gift That Keeps on Giving

[M.Dancer]

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. Andrew

At least not consciously. Secular morality stands on the shoulders of the judeo-christian ethic......There is no secular morality that is unique to secular thought.

[AndrewL]

At least not consciously. Secular morality stands on the shoulders of the judeo-christian ethic......There is no secular morality that is unique to secular thought.

What is the judeo-christian ethic? Can you fill that in with some details. All i can think of is slave owning, killing blasphemers, hunting witches, etc....

Or are we talking simply about christ here.... i.e, alms for the poor?

Andrew

[AndrewL]

There is no secular morality that is unique to secular thought.

This is interesting actually. It makes me wonder if the same is true for religious morality. That is, there is no religious morality that is unique to religious thought....

Im thinking there is human morality only and it overlaps into both the religious and non-religious spheres of daily life.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

This is interesting actually. It makes me wonder if the same is true for religious morality. That is, there is no religious morality that is unique to religious thought....

Im thinking there is human morality only and it overlaps into both the religious and non-religious spheres of daily life.

Andrew

Well....maybe. But we do know that morality evolves, or at least our sense of justice evolves and without morality there can be no concept of justice.

Take an eye for an eye.......sounds barbaric now.....but at the time it was a groundbreaking idea...

Take animal rights....the earliest documented laws regarding animal rights that I can think if are in leviticus.....

[Bonam]

Well....maybe. But we do know that morality evolves, or at least our sense of justice evolves and without morality there can be no concept of justice.

Indeed, morality evolves, however, religion doesn't really seem to evolve, until its replaced by a new one. Christian morals are based on what was applicable and probably mostly made sense 2000 years ago, and in the place of its origin. Does every aspect of Christian morality still make sense today? Or the morality of any other religion that was developed thousands of years ago? Times change, and standards of conduct need to change with them to some extent, but religions remain static. From that point of view, I'd say that religions often slow down and hold back moral progress and adaptation.

[M.Dancer]

Indeed, morality evolves, however, religion doesn't really seem to evolve, until its replaced by a new one.

That sounds like evolving to me.

The judaism of Abraham and Lot seems quite different on the surface than the Judaism of Amos.

Christian morals are based on what was applicable and probably mostly made sense 2000 years ago, and in the place of its origin.

Christian morals didn't make sense then ....nor do they now. But I think that is the mystery of trying to be moral. How many of us would sell everything we had to give to the poor? How many of us would take time to visit strangers in prison, turn the other cheek or focus so hard that we don't even commit adultery in our mind?

Christian morals are an ideal that are unattainable, and like the minutia of Jewish law, they are almost impossible to follow perfectly, and therefore we suffer.......

From that point of view, I'd say that religions often slow down and hold back moral progress and adaptation.

From my perspective, I would say we haven't yet reached the point of the sermon on the mount.....

[AndrewL]

Well....maybe. But we do know that morality evolves, or at least our sense of justice evolves and without morality there can be no concept of justice.

The moral zeitgeist....

Thankfully our morals do evolve and we are not following scripture.

Take an eye for an eye.......sounds barbaric now.....but at the time it was a groundbreaking idea...

Take animal rights....the earliest documented laws regarding animal rights that I can think if are in leviticus.....

Take human rights. There is no mention at all of human rights in religious texts we have.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Take human rights. There is no mention at all of human rights in religious texts we have.

Andrew

Of course there are. As a matter of fact, just about the entire bible is either calling for human rights or illustrating the consequences of disregard for human rights.

Not the first citation but one of the most well known is then 4th commandment, the day of rest. This law applied to everyone including slaves. It is the first labour law in an age where everyone worked 7 days a week.

[AndrewL]

Of course there are. As a matter of fact, just about the entire bible is either calling for human rights or illustrating the consequences of disregard for human rights.

Not the first citation but one of the most well known is then 4th commandment, the day of rest. This law applied to everyone including slaves. It is the first labour law in an age where everyone worked 7 days a week.

Did it apply to tribal peoples who practiced animism? Did it apply to polythesists? Human rights are inalienable and universal. There is no example of any such thing in the bible. There are only examples of rights that apply to christians exclusively. And i would question whether they could be considered rights at all, rather than a duty. It is the 4th commandment, not the 4th right.

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL

[CLRV]

Thankfully our morals do evolve and we are not following scripture.

Take human rights. There is no mention at all of human rights in religious texts we have.

Ridiculous. The concept of human rights has always been based in scripture. The people most active in its development were men of faith. Martin Luthur King used the scriptures regularly as part and parcel of his conceptualization of human rights. Ghandi dervied his conceptualization of human rights from the works of his Hindu faith.

Secularism has had to have human rights thrust upon it and it did so only grudgingly. King and Ghandi fought against secular political forces and, like Christ, were eventually murdered for their efforts.

[M.Dancer]

Did it apply to tribal peoples who practiced animism? Did it apply to polythesists?

Of course it did. As much as our child labour laws apply to the nomadic peoples of the Gobi.

Human rights are inalienable and universal

Therefore if I find that someone or somewhere those rights are being ignored, they become invalid? Is that your argument?

There is no example of any such thing in the bible. There are only examples of rights that apply to christians exclusively. And i would question whethere they could be considered rights at all, rather than a duty.

I'm sorry? You are suggesting that certain passages only appy to christians? That rights are not also duties?

If it is a right of the poor to live in dignity, is it not a duty to see they do?

If it is a right of the accused to have a fair trial, is it not also a duty to see they do?

I think you may want to take a break and refresh your thoughts.

[AndrewL]

Of course it did. As much as our child labour laws apply to the nomadic peoples of the Gobi.

Well no it didnt. The ten commandment were not rights at all. they were obligations meant for christians and christians only.

Therefore if I find that someone or somewhere those rights are being ignored, they become invalid? Is that your argument?

lol... id be surprised if you can find me a place where they are not being ignored. Im just taling about the definition of human rights, i said nothing about whether or not they are being applied.

I'm sorry? You are suggesting that certain passages only appy to christians? That rights are not also duties?

Yes. On both.

If it is a right of the poor to live in dignity, is it not a duty to see they do?

If it is a right of the accused to have a fair trial, is it not also a duty to see they do?

The commandments were laws applied to Christians who believed in one and only one god (see the first two commandments), not rights. It is my right to free speach, it is not a law or commandment that i have that i have to speak freely. The difference is quite clear.

I think you may want to take a break and refresh your thoughts.

That is always a good idea. And on further thought, im more convinced than ever that the commandments cannot be considered rights at all.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Ridiculous. The concept of human rights has always been based in scripture.

Show me an example please.

The people most active in its development were men of faith. Martin Luthur King

MLK got his non-violence from Ghandi who got it from Jainism. He got his desire for freedom from the secular american constitution. MLK was not an author of the bible. He is far too recent. lol....

used the scriptures regularly as part and parcel of his conceptualization of human rights. Ghandi dervied his conceptualization of human rights from the works of his Hindu faith.

Secularism has had to have human rights thrust upon it and it did so only grudgingly. King and Ghandi fought against secular political forces and, like Christ, were eventually murdered for their efforts.

Please show me some passages from the bible that allude to, mention, hint at, or describe universal human rights for all sexes and all peoples regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL

[M.Dancer]

Well no it didnt. The ten commandment were not rights at all. they were obligations meant for christians and christians only.

I'm wondering how that can be. I mean....I mean......the laws predate christianity by at least...what? 10 years, maybe more?

On top of that, you have nothing to back up your assertion that the laws only applied to ....(whomever)......

You are out to lunch of rights/duties. Your children have a right to live in a healthy environment but you suggest that no one has a duty to ensure they do.

[AndrewL]

Secularism has had to have human rights thrust upon it and it did so only grudgingly. King and Ghandi fought against secular political forces and, like Christ, were eventually murdered for their efforts.

I had to read this part again because it does not make sense when the history of religion is considered.

I would say modern secualr morality is what is still being forced on the bible. Whether we go back a to women's suffrage, enfranchisement of slaves, indigeneous rights, etc... the bible has long been an obstacle to these things. Many people used to use scripture to justify the status of women as chattel, the status of slaves, and the forced conversion of native peoples.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Show me an example please.

MLK got his non-violence from Ghandi who got it from Jainism. He got his desire for freedom from the secular american constitution. MLK was not an author of the bible. He is far too recent. lol....

Please show me some passages from the bible that allude to, mention, hint at, or describe universal human rights for all sexes and all peoples regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...

Andrew

Why not add planetary origin?

If there is no mention of race, does that mean that women have no human rights?

but as you wish........

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

But note how the goal posts have moved. When proof of human rights is presented, it becomes Univeral Human Rights

[M.Dancer]

I had to read this part again because it does not make sense when the history of religion is considered.

I would say modern secualr morality is what is still being forced on the bible. Whether we go back a to women's suffrage, enfranchisement of slaves, indigeneous rights, etc... the bible has long been an obstacle to these things. Many people used to use scripture to justify the status of women as chattel, the status of slaves, and the forced conversion of native peoples.

Andrew

It was bible believing people who fought and worked to end slavery, end child labour, worked towards the suffrage of women and used the bible to justify all of that. Claiming that others used the bible in an opposite manner is a zero sum game.

[AndrewL]

I'm wondering how that can be. I mean....I mean......the laws predate christianity by at least...what? 10 years, maybe more?

Ok so call it the Abrahamic religion or whatever, it really makes no difference to the fact that commandments cannot be considered rights. They are conceptually opposite.

Here is a commandment:

But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

You shall not..... it does not say you have the right to take the day off fi you wish.... it says you must take the day off and force others who may be visiting to do so as well. That would be considered a violation of human rights more than anything.

On top of that, you have nothing to back up your assertion that the laws only applied to ....(whomever).....

.

At least now you are calling them laws and not rights. It is clear in the reading of the ten commandments and in the entire history of christianity which has always been evangelical.

Here:

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me

How could one commandment demand through the threat of generations of child abuse that you must worship only this one god, and at the same time extend the same status of those who believe to non-believers. That does not make sense.

You are out to lunch of rights/duties. Your children have a right to live in a healthy environment but you suggest that no one has a duty to ensure they do.

Yes. In fact i would argue that the duty and obligation in our society seems to be the exact opposite. Our duty is to go to school, get a job, consume like a glutton, etc.... That hardly constitutes a duty to protect the environment. Our duty is to keep the economy going, which in its current form is what poisons the world. I wish the majority people considered it a duty to promote a healthy environment, but sadly it seems like people think it as a duty to ridicule those who ask for such things.

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL

[AndrewL]

It was bible believing people who fought and worked to end slavery, end child labour, worked towards the suffrage of women and used the bible to justify all of that. Claiming that others used the bible in an opposite manner is a zero sum game.

Nonsense. The bible has always been used to limit the rights of people. Still is today. Gay rights, stem-cell research, condoms, divorce, and so on....

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Why not add planetary origin?

If there is no mention of race, does that mean that women have no human rights?

add gender as well then and whatever else you can think of... the point is unchanged..

But note how the goal posts have moved. When proof of human rights is presented, it becomes Univeral Human Rights

Human rights has always been defined as universal. Otherwise it would not be called human rights. It would be called american rights, native rights, women rights, child rights, jewish rights... human rights encompasses them all and absolutely has to be universal.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Ok so call it the Abrahamic religion or whatever, it really makes no difference to the fact that commandments cannot be considered rights. They are conceptually opposite.

Here is a commandment:

But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

You shall not..... it does not say you have the right to take the day off fi you wish.... it says you must take the day off and force others who may be visiting to do so as well. That would be considered a violation of human rights more than anything.

I think you are in violation of the laws of mental gymnastics.

It does plainly say you are forbiddin to work your servants 7 days a week....your duty, their right to a day off.

So you are in favour of labour laws, but not in favour of enforcin them.....but before you said that the laws applied only to Christians and then you post that they also applied to slaves and even to animals.

See, the problem you are having is simple. Earlier I was talking about morality and justice evolving. And that it our secular ethics find their roots in judeo christianity. Then for some unknown reason you start demanding proof of a full blown mature codex of universal human rights.

No Andrew, you will not find mention of universal rights for extra terrestials in the Old Testament. But from the very first chapeters you will find the seeds of every value we hold dear, whether it's the right to peace or the right to a fair trial.

[M.Dancer]

Nonsense. The bible has always been used to limit the rights of people. Still is today. Gay rights, stem-cell research, condoms, divorce, and so on....

Andrew

Can we just agree then that you don't know the history of the abolitionaist movements, humanism, liberalism the suffrage movement.....?

[M.Dancer]

At least now you are calling them laws and not rights. It is clear in the reading of the ten commandments and in the entire history of christianity which has always been evangelical.

Words havbe meanings. I'm not sure if it's a right or a duty, but it would be nice if you used them correctly and in context.

[AndrewL]

I think you are in violation of the laws of mental gymnastics.

It does plainly say you are forbiddin to work your servants 7 days a week....your duty, their right to a day off.

So you are in favour of labour laws, but not in favour of enforcin them.....but before you said that the laws applied only to Christians and then you post that they also applied to slaves and even to animals.

Its simple.. They are commandments. A person found not resting on the 7th day would have been punished in some way (and were for hundreds of years all the way up to my lifetime). This is not a right, it is an absolute requirement.

I never said anything about labor laws. Im talking about definitions and whether or not biblical scripture can be viewed as a treatise promoting human rights. I think it cannot and that our morals have evolved beyond scripture, and indeed many of our morals are even contrary to scripture.

See, the problem you are having is simple. Earlier I was talking about morality and justice evolving. And that it our secular ethics find their roots in judeo christianity. Then for some unknown reason you start demanding proof of a full blown mature codex of universal human rights.

No i didnt. I said the bible contains no expression of human rights as we would define it. You provided that one quote which was close but it still made everybody a christian in a backhanded way. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" Bullshit.

No Andrew, you will not find mention of universal rights for extra terrestials in the Old Testament. But from the very first chapeters you will find the seeds of every value we hold dear, whether it's the right to peace or the right to a fair trial.

So glib. Perhaps there are some seeds in scripture that gave meaning to some of our later values, sure. But my point is that we also hold values that transcend these ancient texts. At some point we needed new values that worked for us that would not have worked for them. Human rights is one of those things. As is abolishion of slavery. As is acceptance of homosexuals. As is acceptance of atheists. And so on. Scripture is nothing more than what the people who lived at the time made it.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Can we just agree then that you don't know the history of the abolitionaist movements, humanism, liberalism the suffrage movement.....?

Im not saying people who believe in human rights cannot hold the bible dear. Im just saying that if such things were inspired by the bible they would have taken place long before the last two centuries. The bible certainly has not changed, but peopel did, for reasons unconnected to religion.

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL