Judeo-Christian Ethics; The Gift That Keeps on Giving

[sucker punch]

I suppose it's a bit less damaging, though I've never inquired about the mechanics. I do feel that lesbian relationships are less promiscuous and thus somewhat less damaging to the social fabric. I still don't think we should experiment with lesbian couples' raising children. The subjects of the "experiment" are totally innocent and have a right not to be experimented on.

Oh for god's sake.

You don't know how lesbians have sexual relations?

You think homosexual relationships are damaging to the social fabric?

You have a problem with homosexual's raising children?

Ignorance and naïveté abounds.

[WestViking]

There may be some merit in claiming to be a godless and amoral character, divorced from personal responsibilities, but I fail to see it. Mocking another's belief and faith is indicative of low character and even lower standards. Then again, living up to your standards is dead easy if you lack discernable values.

[cybercoma]

I suppose it's a bit less damaging, though I've never inquired about the mechanics. I do feel that lesbian relationships are less promiscuous and thus somewhat less damaging to the social fabric. I still don't think we should experiment with lesbian couples' raising children. The subjects of the "experiment" are totally innocent and have a right not to be experimented on.

What about lesbian parents that have children from past relationships? Should we experiment on those children by taking them away from their biological mother?

This is patently absurd. I don't see you considering the X-Games a sin because it puts people in danger. Is smoking a sin? Is living in a major city with high pollution a sin? Is working in industries where harmful chemicals are processed or manufactured a sin?

This is nothing more than an attempt to smear a segment of society that doesn't fit with what YOUR view of the world should be. It is love that they share for one another, as much as any heterosexual couple shares and calling them sinners and condemning them is nothing more than hate-mongering.

I suppose heterosexual couples that have anal sex are sinners too. This is all about the anal sex, right? What about homosexual couples who don't partake in anal sex, but only make love through oral sex? Is that ok with you? You know what, ti doesn't matter what's ok with you or your religious dogma because what goes on in consenting adults' bedrooms is none of anyone's business but theirs.

This is all beside the point, that in your original post you've exhibited the exact type of dangerous thinking that leads to people being senselessly killed in the name of an unprovable and unfalsifiable God. It is thinking that sinners DESERVE to be punished, it is defining people who are different than you as sinners that leads fanatics to believe that they can become the weapon of God and strike down people they don't agree with. It is the religious moderates who then give them carte blanche to do as they choose by thinking in the back of their mind that this is just God's way of punishing the wicked.

Well, I'm sorry, but glorifying the loss of innocent lives and saying that homosexuals or anyone else deserves to be infected with AIDS or have their lives taken from them in natural disasters because it is "God's will" is completely unacceptable to me.

[CLRV]

Jesus never uttered any words about pedophiles either. But his followers said homosexuality was bad and they knew the man. Plus the Old Testament says this as well. Jesus being Jewish would have agreed. He never once softened religious values. In fact he made them stricter. Ceremonial and ritual laws he said came second. At the same time he believed in mercy. Therefore he would not punish or harm a gay person or refuse to talk or be friends. He was friends with sinners. But he never once said that sin was a-ok.

The apostles were men. St. Peter didn't think much of women either. Christ showed no such antipathy. I'd just prefer to stick to the actual words of Christ. Since we have two sources for the Beatitudes; Mathew and Luke, it's fairly safe to say these words were a central part of His teachings. As opposed to additions made individually by *some* of his pupils after the fact.

The Old Testament is just that; the Old Testament. It also contains slavery, concubines, incest, rape and torture. Noah's daughters get their father drunk and lay with him. Lot offers his own daughters sexually to a group of men in the streets of Sodom (fortunately they were gay and refused his sick offer).

Christ is extolling us to leave that behind. The Sermon on the Mount was clearly His amendment of the Ten Commandments. That's not "softening" anything. What He's asking is much harder.

And by the way, the Beatitudes would fit just fine on a courthouse wall. There's only eight of them.

Why do you think that believing something is a sin is hate-mongering? There is some faulty logic there. I do things which I know other people believe is sinful, the fact that they do not condone it or even express a moral dissent about it does not mean they hate me. Liquor is legal, but aside from law individuals can have their own moral limitations. If a teetotaler believes liquor is evil and expresses his belief, that is not hatred. I am not barging into someone's bedroom. I am not stopping people from being gay. I just ask for the freedom to say I believe something is a sin. Plain and simple. That is not hatred.

Well first of all, in this thread I wasn't equating belief in sin with hate-mongering. I pointed out the hypocrisy of hiding that hate within scripture when one does not truly believe or adhere to that scripture. "Judeo-Christian" in this thread has been reduced to a cheap buffet selection of whatever words justify pre-existing attitudes and a total disregard for passages which disagree or disqualify. There's a lot of that going around and such people might just as well throw Islamic values onto their tray too. There are plenty of bad things in the Koran about ass-banditry. I'm sure there are many such commanalities, if you're really so fascinated with anal sex. I think it's kinda creepy, but who am I to judge?

Which brings me to: Christ told us it wasn't for us to judge sin. That's God's job. You think you should have the "freedom" to go around identifying the sinners, a self-professed sinner yourself? Why should anybody be interested in that? Other people do not require your approval. Of course, nobody can stop you from doing it in your mind, but don't kid yourself that it's following Christ.

[jbg]

Oh for god's sake.

You don't know how lesbians have sexual relations?

Why don't you explain, since you seem to know?

You think homosexual relationships are damaging to the social fabric?

Yes. Hasn't the model, for thousands of years, been quasi-monogamous heterosexual relationships?

You have a problem with homosexual's raising children?

Would you like to find out? Isn't there something to the idea that males and females often have different and complementary personalities and children should learn how to interact with both? And that's just an example. Who would you like to play your social engineering games on?

What about lesbian parents that have children from past relationships? Should we experiment on those children by taking them away from their biological mother?

No one has suggested that. There are plenty of times that children are stuck in less than ideal situations, particularly when there's a divorce or death of a parent. That doesn't mean we look to create experimental methods of child raising. Israel, for example, experimented with some collective child raising with the early kibbutzim and largely dropped it. Why experiment when we have a working model?

This is nothing more than an attempt to smear a segment of society that doesn't fit with what YOUR view of the world should be. It is love that they share for one another, as much as any heterosexual couple shares and calling them sinners and condemning them is nothing more than hate-mongering.

Smear? All that I am arguing for is caution before changing, for the sake of political correctness, models that work.

Ignorance and naïveté abounds.

Quite obviously.

This is all beside the point, that in your original post you've exhibited the exact type of dangerous thinking that leads to people being senselessly killed in the name of an unprovable and unfalsifiable God. It is thinking that sinners DESERVE to be punished, it is defining people who are different than you as sinners that leads fanatics to believe that they can become the weapon of God and strike down people they don't agree with. It is the religious moderates who then give them carte blanche to do as they choose by thinking in the back of their mind that this is just God's way of punishing the wicked.

Now I'm inciting to murder? Have you and other posters taken leave of your senses?

Well, I'm sorry, but glorifying the loss of innocent lives and saying that homosexuals or anyone else deserves to be infected with AIDS or have their lives taken from them in natural disasters because it is "God's will" is completely unacceptable to me.

And me as well.

[cybercoma]

Noah's daughters get their father drunk and lay with him. Lot offers his own daughters sexually to a group of men in the streets of Sodom (fortunately they were gay and refused his sick offer).

Actually, it was Lot's daughters that got him drunk and then became pregnant by him. It's ok that he offered his daughters to an angry mob so they could rape the girls, but his wife was killed for looking at the fireworks show....

Women are scum though, didn't you get the memo?

[B. Max]

I see precious few "Christians" even attempting to live up to these commandments and the sorry state of the world reflects that paucity of genuine Christian ethos. You don't see it on the street. Certainly I do not see it in this place. Advocating war. Forcing Christ into your voyeuristic fascination with the sex lives others, when Christ never uttered ONE WORD about homosexuals one way or the other. Utterly failing to even *try* understanding your "enemy"; to the point of actually stating, apparently with a straight face, that "muslim culture" somehow values family less than ours does. They're just not like us, you see.

Jesus Wept...

Christ never said anything about a lot of things, and most of all he never said anything about disobeying Gods laws, and explicitly said he came not to change laws. It was already well understood that homosexuality was wrong.

What is not well understood by many are the bibles mistranslation.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archi...ames;read=31043

Edited August 13, 2007 by B. Max

[jefferiah]

Which brings me to: Christ told us it wasn't for us to judge sin. That's God's job. You think you should have the "freedom" to go around identifying the sinners, a self-professed sinner yourself? Why should anybody be interested in that? Other people do not require your approval. Of course, nobody can stop you from doing it in your mind, but don't kid yourself that it's following Christ.

Ah, I think you are wrong there. Christ told us it was not for us to judge others. The law already determines what sin is, we don't have to judge. That means that I cannot look down on someone who is homosexual when I have committed adultery, because the same mercy that is extended to me depends upon mercy for all sinners. It means we cannot pass judgement on fellow sinners when we are sinners ourselves. But it does not mean that neither adultery or homosexual acts are sins. And this is where it refutes Cybercoma's assertion that Christianity views homosexuals as subhuman. Jesus never made any attempt to clear up the homosexual "mistake" (as you see it) in the Old Testament, either. He did not come to destroy the law. Not a pen stroke shall disappear. What changes is mercy takes the place of punishment. Believing that what someone does is wrong does not mean you hate that person. If this were the case CLRV, and you believe that we cannot even decide what sin is and to do so is just bigotry, then children could have their parents tried for hate crimes for telling them not to do things. Because the parents would then have no right to decide that something is wrong or sinful, and because thinking that something is immoral means you hate people who do it. That is preposterous.

Jesus did teach love and mercy. But love and mercy do not mean that one cannot hold moral views about something. And believing that something is a sin is not hatred. Because one feels homosexuality is a sin, it does not mean that one thinks one is better than homosexuals. If you robbed a bank and I dated another man's wife, I could not say much about how I am better than you. But if I were asked if robbing a bank is right or wrong, would you expect me then to say it is ok? Of course not. I may be a sinner and I may be no better than a bank robber, but I know robbery is a sin.

Edited August 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

And me as well.

Please explain to me then, what you meant by, "There is a solid argument for adhering to fundamental Judaeo-Christian teachings. Those who stray eventually pay."

And how you find it at all acceptable to call AIDS and herpes God's punishment to those who have strayed. Not to mention the fact that you're saying equal rights for homosexuality is a NEGATIVE consequence of straying from God.

Please explain how the empowerment of women and thus the rise in divorce is a negative consequence? Should divorce be disallowed, forcing these women to remain in relationships with abusive partners?

Can you explain how the horrors of Islam are not related to a Judeo-Christian God and His will? They believe in the same deity of Jews and Christians, they've simply found their own interpretation of it. The dogma is equally nonsensical to Christianity and Judaism and all other religions since there is no way of proving which one is correct without first proving that there is indeed a deity whose will is to be followed.

It's insanity, all of these people believing in the same God and murdering one another because they feel their idea of "His" will is the correct one, when it cannot even be proven that a God exists in the first place. Meanwhile, those who are not killing put a smug grin on their face when they hear of the suffering of the "bad guys" because they feel it proves their interpretation of His will is correct, since God is punishing the guys who are wrong.

The Jews are not chosen for anything, they've endured horrible atrocities, but are not anymore special than any other people on this planet to have suffered. There is no God whipping up punishments for the non-believers and protecting "His" chosen ones. There is only us and the nightmares we are creating for one another.

[jefferiah]

Please explain to me then, what you meant by, "There is a solid argument for adhering to fundamental Judaeo-Christian teachings. Those who stray eventually pay."

And how you find it at all acceptable to call AIDS and herpes God's punishment to those who have strayed. Not to mention the fact that you're saying equal rights for homosexuality is a NEGATIVE consequence of straying from God.

Can you explain how the horrors of Islam are not related to a Judeo-Christian God and His will? They believe in the same deity of Jews and Christians, they've simply found their own interpretation of it. The dogma is equally nonsensical to Christianity and Judaism and all other religions since there is no way of proving which one is correct without first proving that there is indeed a deity whose will is to be followed.

He never said it was punishment from God. But free love doesn't help keep herpes and AIDS at bay. In fact in the early days of aids there is one man who was known to have infected many many people.

As for this other comment, you are taking one for the other. It is a common mistake you make, over and over again. Look let's say you start a movement or even a group of some kind. You have great ideals, charitable intents, but then two years after your death a branch-off group forms from your own. The Reformed Cybercoma Society. And they believe in implementing Cybercoma-esque policies, not by literature and education, but by military force. Now is Cybercoma to blame. Or is the original society to blame.

[jbg]

Please explain to me then, what you meant by, "There is a solid argument for adhering to fundamental Judaeo-Christian teachings. Those who stray eventually pay."

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. My point is that what I call "fundamental Judeo-Christian teachings" are derived as much from common sense as religion.

And how you find it at all acceptable to call AIDS and herpes God's punishment to those who have strayed. Not to mention the fact that you're saying equal rights for homosexuality is a NEGATIVE consequence of straying from God.

Trust me, if I had a vaccine for AIDS I'd make it available to all. But you knew that.

Please explain how the empowerment of women and thus the rise in divorce is a negative consequence? Should divorce be disallowed, forcing these women to remain in relationships with abusive partners?

Why do you take everything to extremes? In some cases, divorce is not a bad thing. Overall, though, marital life should not resemble Peyton Place or a square dance.

Can you explain how the horrors of Islam are not related to a Judeo-Christian God and His will? They believe in the same deity of Jews and Christians, they've simply found their own interpretation of it. The dogma is equally nonsensical to Christianity and Judaism and all other religions since there is no way of proving which one is correct without first proving that there is indeed a deity whose will is to be followed.

The teachings are not at all similar.

The Jews are not chosen for anything, they've endured horrible atrocities, but are not anymore special than any other people on this planet to have suffered. There is no God whipping up punishments for the non-believers and protecting "His" chosen ones. There is only us and the nightmares we are creating for one another.

I give up. How is it that a group that accounts for 0.2% of the world population accounts for such a large percentage of news coverage, good or bad? And how is it we're not marginal, as the Zoroastorians or Bahais (other victims of Islam) are?

[CLRV]

Actually, it was Lot's daughters that got him drunk and then became pregnant by him. It's ok that he offered his daughters to an angry mob so they could rape the girls, but his wife was killed for looking at the fireworks show....

Women are scum though, didn't you get the memo?

You are, of course, correct. It was Lot. I was thinking of Ham covering Noah's drunken nakedness a few chapters earlier. That Lot sure was a spunky guy though, eh? A real Judeo-Christian icon.

[CLRV]

Ah, I think you are wrong there. Christ told us it was not for us to judge others. The law already determines what sin is, we don't have to judge.

Sophistry. God's Law. God's to judge. God's to enforce.

But if sin is the problem, why focus on sodomy? Surely we are awash in sin. The greatest is Pride and surely that's all around us. Why the focus on homsexuality and MALE homosexuality at that.

As I said, the recourse to scripture would be more convincing if it was more universally applied.

[sucker punch]

Why don't you explain, since you seem to know?

You honestly want me to explain to you how two women can have sex? Seriously?

Yes. Hasn't the model, for thousands of years, been quasi-monogamous heterosexual relationships?

And that is relevant how?

Would you like to find out? Isn't there something to the idea that males and females often have different and complementary personalities and children should learn how to interact with both? And that's just an example. Who would you like to play your social engineering games on?

Testing is unnecessary and that is just a foolish thing to say. Social engineering games? Please. The nuclear family isn't the standard anymore. Is there something about two of the same sex inherently worse than all the other ways children are raised?

What about families with an abusive parent.

Or families with an alcoholic parent.

Or single parent families.

Or families in which both parents work.

Or families which employ a nanny.

Or orphans.

Or foster families.

Or children raised by their older sibling.

Or parents who use drugs.

Or parents who teach their children intolerance and hate.

Maybe we should take children away from Mothers who aren't married? After all, the child is missing the necessary different and complementary personality of the father.

A child being raised by a loving lesbian couple is the least of our problems as far as child-rearing goes. The fact that that even concerns you in the slightest makes me feel you have more of a problem with homosexuality itself than with the welfare of the child.

[cybercoma]

You are, of course, correct. It was Lot. I was thinking of Ham covering Noah's drunken nakedness a few chapters earlier. That Lot sure was a spunky guy though, eh? A real Judeo-Christian icon.

The God of the old testament was just a radical... Jesus changed all of that. The proof is in the fact that its stated in a book.

[CLRV]

The God of the old testament was just a radical... Jesus changed all of that. The proof is in the fact that its stated in a book.

Now-now... sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...

[Guest American Woman]

A co-worker who is pregant and just attended her first LeLeche class was telling me about a young Lesbian couple in the class; they were told the baby shouldn't be bottle fed for the first month, so the non-pregnant mother was disappointed that she wouldn't be able to feed the baby for a whole month. Turns out there's a pill she can take so she can nurse too, even though she's not giving birth. Anyway, the point is, they are just as serious about being parents as any couple in the class and are most definitely not looking upon being a family as an "experiment."

[cybercoma]

A co-worker who is pregant and just attended her first LeLeche class was telling me about a young Lesbian couple in the class; they were told the baby shouldn't be bottle fed for the first month, so the non-pregnant mother was disappointed that she wouldn't be able to feed the baby for a whole month. Turns out there's a pill she can take so she can nurse too, even though she's not giving birth. Anyway, the point is, they are just as serious about being parents as any couple in the class and are most definitely not looking upon being a family as an "experiment."

They're SINNERS who are going to rot in hell after being punished by God with venereal diseases. They should be ashamed of themselves and repent. It's not too late for them to become heterosexuals and find God in their lives.

Scary thing is... some people actually think this way.

[jbg]

I do not make a policy of responding to posts whose main function is to mock. Thus, many posts along the way are being ignored.

[jefferiah]

Sophistry. God's Law. God's to judge. God's to enforce.

But if sin is the problem, why focus on sodomy? Surely we are awash in sin. The greatest is Pride and surely that's all around us. Why the focus on homsexuality and MALE homosexuality at that.

As I said, the recourse to scripture would be more convincing if it was more universally applied.

Ah, but no one is focusing on it. Cybercoma mentioned it in reference to his belief that religious people collectively see homosexuals as sub-humans. I replied and explained that there is a difference between feeling something is wrong and feeling morally superior, then you all replied to that. And no male homosexuality should not be the focal point either.

No one is talking about enforcing God's law. As I said I am not stopping people from being gay. All I ask is freedom to express the belief that it is a sin. Believing something is a sin does not necessitate a prosecution.

You are right. Sin is a problem. And everyone is a sinner. And it is not something that I can solve. I am not trying to solve it. But I think there should be freedom to profess what sin is. In that sense, the homosexual issue has become a greater focus for Christians because this is one area where people are being charged for speaking. If you remember the case I mentioned about the politician from BC who expressed his views---he did not express these views because he was focused upon homosexuals or targetting them but simply because he was asked a question regarding his views in an interview. And he was sued.

If your parents know you do drugs they may not be happy about it, but you are a grown man. They may express a concern for you, and feel that you are doing wrong. It does not mean your parents think you are the scum of the Earth. Or that they think they are better people than you are. And it certainly does not mean they hate you.

A good example of sophistry is when people try to take the fact that Jesus is merciful and use it to say that there is no such thing as sin.

Edited August 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

You are, of course, correct. It was Lot. I was thinking of Ham covering Noah's drunken nakedness a few chapters earlier. That Lot sure was a spunky guy though, eh? A real Judeo-Christian icon.

Ham didn't cover Noah's nakedness. Shem and Japheth did, walking backwards.

[CLRV]

All I ask is freedom to express the belief that it is a sin.

And all I ask is why you think it's necessary for you to do so.

But there has indeed been focus on homosexuality. This thread's founder listed Demands for "gay rights"; AIDS; Herpes, and made it clear he thought the "dangerous" gay practices were to blame. He then went on to list Heroin and then a whole new section on Islam, which is weird if you remember that Islam has a fine record of crushing both homosexual rights and the heroin trade. Afghanistan didn't have either under the Taliban.

[jefferiah]

They're SINNERS who are going to rot in hell after being punished by God with venereal diseases. They should be ashamed of themselves and repent. It's not too late for them to become heterosexuals and find God in their lives.

Scary thing is... some people actually think this way.

The thing is Cybercoma, and I know you are being sarcastic, but you are the only one who has actually said this. JBG was talking about the sexual revolution in general, where the idea of having a different partner all the time is promoted. Having concern about this does not mean you think you are better than those who sleep around. No one is perfect. Jesus did not stone the adulteress or say she was a rotten wench, but neither did he say "Well, now go find yourself a man for the night."

[jefferiah]

And all I ask is why you think it's necessary for you to do so.

Because I believe that it is, among other things as well. And I think it's important to be able to maintain that. The right to say the other things has not been challenged. I have never heard of swingers demanding that people be sued for professing the belief that monogamy is the right way.

If you read Romans there is a passage concerning this issue. It is mentioned amid other sins as well. There is no particular focus on it. Paul is speaking about the many sins of mankind, and this is only one of them he mentions. And when he is done he says we are all guilty of these sins. The bank robber, the proud, the adulterer, etc. No one is special here. In order to have a religious moral standard, you must be able to communicate it.

If the Meat Eaters Society did not like the Zen Buddhists assertion that meat eating is wrong, then they don't have to join. But if they then say look "Let us also ban their right to profess their belief on this matter." Well this is only one small issue perhaps. But it is a small issue that is a part of Zen monastic life, and if they wish to hold this standard, they must have some way to communicate it. Or else how would they let newcomers know....we don't believe in eating meat.

[kuzadd]

What nonsense, Jews are no more special than any other human monkey on this planet.

Agreed, in fact, how could anyone, even a person of faith beleive, that God created man in his own image, and that we are all God;s children and then "God: an omnipotent, all-knowing being, would pick his "favourites". isn't he smart enough to know that is how sibling rivalry is created.

There is no such thing as "chosen People" that is just religious quackery.

God, I had to get that brainwashing out of my head after years of catholic school, cause only Catholics are the "true christians" Even the Pope recently told the world that!

sheesh!