Judeo-Christian Ethics; The Gift That Keeps on Giving

[CLRV]

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...

I must be wasting my time providing links within the context of my post, because I'm almost sure the selection from my post you quoted linked to MLK's use of the Sermon on the Mount as the basis for his speech on human rights.

It is no coincidence that the abolishonists, the sufferagettes and the civil rights movement all began in churches across America. The seeds of our modern concept of human rights are all to be found in articles of faith.

And I can't say I'm going to be convinced to change my view of "religious history" by someone who thinks Moses handed down the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel for "Christians and Christians only". Christ's sermons and Beatitudes are commentary/amendment of the Commandments. Other enlightened spirits have come along since then to add their contributions. Faith evolves as men do. You are citing examples thousands of years old while dismissing contemporary faith moving mountains.

[Drea]

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

Hear Hear!

Two words - secular humanists.

Rights didn't come along until such a short time ago... so I don't know how anyone can think that religion is responsible for how far we've come in terms of our humanity.

On the contrary, it has been (still is) religions that have held us back for so long.

[jbg]

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

How about hard work, thrift, valuing education, valuing family life, discipline, nonviolence?

[jbg]

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

Citations to the Bible on that?

[M.Dancer]

Rights didn't come along until such a short time ago...

Really? How long do you suppose Habeas Corpus has been kicking around....or perjury?

On the contrary, it has been (still is) religions that have held us back for so long.

Yeah those evil people religionists who ran the underground railroad held the southern US back......

It amazes me that people can seemingly graduate from school and have a near zero knowledge of history......

[M.Dancer]

How about hard work, thrift, valuing education, valuing family life, discipline, nonviolence?

self sacrifice and empathy......

[CLRV]

Hear Hear!

Two words - secular humanists.

Rights didn't come along until such a short time ago... so I don't know how anyone can think that religion is responsible for how far we've come in terms of our humanity.

On the contrary, it has been (still is) religions that have held us back for so long.

Well that settles that. It is officially a waste of time providing example and citation to these anti-religious close-minds.

One last time, MLK and Ghandi both cited their respective scriptures in their efforts to create the concept of human rights we enjoy today. Abolishionists, suffragettes and civil rights all began in church.

A simple web search on the subject shows that the modern concept of human rights was founded in religion.

Now they're asking for a Bible quote on stem cell research? What a desperately pathetic rhetorical question. I'm done. There's no convincing anti-religious extremists any more than religious extremists. As I said before, they're two sides of the same coin.

Edited August 15, 2007 by CLRV

[Drea]

Oh cry me a river... pft.

Religion (as we know it today) has been around for 2000 years. Why, during those first wonderfully "enlightened" years, did humanitarianism NOT come about?

What is it exactly, about the last few hundred years that have afforded us a higher level of humanity?

Science and education. Not religion. Education and science are what brought us out of the dark ages.

Would you say Islam (a religion btw) holds back human rights?

Would you say Christianity (in it's early years) held back human rights?

Freemasonry (agnostics) are responsible for the human rights we know today. I will look up a link when I have more time.

The unsubstantiated belief in an invisible judge in the sky has held us back from realizing that life is all we got and we really should make the best of it.

I understand why people needed religion before science, but I cannot understand how people can still believe a god is responsible for the sun coming up every day. If you do not pray to sun god Ra, the sun WILL still rise, believe it or not! I know that is hard for fundies to wrap their brains around but it is true. No god is responsible, not Jesus, not Allah, not Yaweh, not G-d, not even Santa or the flying spaghetti monster -- we know the sun will rise because of two things -- science (somebody studied it) and education (somebody taught somebody else what they discovered on their scientific soujourn).

Edited August 15, 2007 by Drea

[Bonam]

A simple web search on the subject shows that the modern concept of human rights was founded in religion.

CLRV, come on, the SIMPLE english wiki as a source? At least use the real wiki article on the subject, rather than the one aimed at 5 year olds. Note that the real article makes almost no reference to religion.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bonam

[Bonam]

Freemasonry (agnostics) are responsible for the human rights we know today. I will look up a link when I have more time.

Drea, while I agree with most of the rest of your post, I thought I'd point out that Freemasons are in fact not agnostic. A requirement of becoming a Freemason is belief in a Supreme Being, though it appears they make no specification as to which Supreme Being you have to believe in.

[M.Dancer]

CLRV, come on, the SIMPLE english wiki as a source? At least use the real wiki article on the subject, rather than the one aimed at 5 year olds. Note that the real article makes almost no reference to religion.

Elsewhere, societies have located the beginnings of human rights in religious documents. The Vedas, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Analects of Confucius are some of the oldest written sources which address questions of people’s duties, rights, and responsibilities.

On the other hand, natural law theories base human rights on the “natural” moral order that derives from religious precepts such as common understandings of justice and the belief that moral behavior is a set of objectively valid prescriptions. Some have used religious texts such as the Bible and Qur'an to support human rights arguments. However, there are also more secular forms of natural law theory that understand human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.[18]

The cultural imperialism argument achieves even greater potency when it is made on the basis of religion. Some histories of human rights emphasise the Christian influence on the agenda and then question whether this is in keeping with the tenets of other world religions. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[20]

Almost no reference......

[Bonam]

Yes, compared to the overall article, and all the primary sections describing the origins and history of human rights, I'd say that's almost no reference. Not to mention, your second quote, itself, makes the point about secular human rights, and your third quote is a justification for not implementing human rights.

[Drea]

Drea, while I agree with most of the rest of your post, I thought I'd point out that Freemasons are in fact not agnostic. A requirement of becoming a Freemason is belief in a Supreme Being, though it appears they make no specification as to which Supreme Being you have to believe in.

Ah yes, but agnostics believe in something (atheists believe there is absolutely no god) -- and the only requirement to become a freemason is to believe in a "god". That "god" could be humanities collective conscience or it could be an actual being in the sky. What matters is that they believed in humanity first, "god" second.

[Bonam]

As far as I understand, an Agnostic is one who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. One that doesn't "know" for sure that God exists cannot be said to believe in God.

[M.Dancer]

and your third quote is a justification for not implementing human rights.

Becuase of their Judeo-Christian roots.

[M.Dancer]

Ah yes, but agnostics believe in something (atheists believe there is absolutely no god) -- and the only requirement to become a freemason is to believe in a "god". That "god" could be humanities collective conscience or it could be an actual being in the sky. What matters is that they believed in humanity first, "god" second.

I'm an agnostic who leans towards theism.....but don't ask me for a membership card of any particular sect. When the local priest asked my about my own Catholicism I answered I was a christian agnostic with Anglo catholic and protestant leanings....

.....my children were christened anyway.....

[CLRV]

CLRV, come on, the SIMPLE english wiki as a source? At least use the real wiki article on the subject, rather than the one aimed at 5 year olds. Note that the real article makes almost no reference to religion.

I figured I'd dumb it down a little, since my eariler direct references to scriptural quotes and the uses made of them by MLK and Ghandi seemed to go over everybody's heads. Note that you still cheerfully overlook their contributions; their direct connections between their faith and their deeds. Too busy digging up centuries-old rubbish about "dark ages" and Egyptian gods.

Edited August 15, 2007 by CLRV

[White Doors]

Ah yes, but agnostics believe in something (atheists believe there is absolutely no god) -- and the only requirement to become a freemason is to believe in a "god". That "god" could be humanities collective conscience or it could be an actual being in the sky. What matters is that they believed in humanity first, "god" second.

haha

Freemasonry is a former Catholic organization. related to the knights templars.

Yes, religion had NOTHING to do with the formation of freemasonry.

Once again, you know not of what you speak.

[M.Dancer]

haha

Freemasonry is a former Catholic organization. related to the knights templars.

Yes, religion had NOTHING to do with the formation of freemasonry.

Once again, you know not of what you speak.

Well that's what some people would like to believe (knights templer) but seeing that the first freemasons lodges are from the beginning of the 18th century and the templars ceased to exist around the begining of the 14th century the probability of a direct link is slight. I don't think it's origins were particulary catholic either.

[White Doors]

Well that's what some people would like to believe (knights templer) but seeing that the first freemasons lodges are from the beginning of the 18th century and the templars ceased to exist around the begining of the 14th century the probability of a direct link is slight. I don't think it's origins were particulary catholic either.

Well the lodge I went to talked of that organization of having a direct influence on them although, they are not entirely sure. But to suggest that Freemasonry has nothing to do with religion is stupefyingly dumb.

[CLRV]

Freemasons run the country!

[M.Dancer]

Stonecutters rule

Who controls the British crown?

Who keeps the metric system down?

We do, We do.

Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?

Who keeps the Martians under wraps?

We do, we do.

Who keeps back the electric car?

Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?

We do, we do.

Who robs cavefish of their sight?

Who rigs every Oscar night?

We do, we dooooooo.

[Drea]

Well the lodge I went to talked of that organization of having a direct influence on them although, they are not entirely sure. But to suggest that Freemasonry has nothing to do with religion is stupefyingly dumb.

I did not say that Freemasonry had nothing to do with religion. Masons must believe in a "god" of some kind in order to obtain membership.

Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas are two excellent authors.

My hubby is interested in freemasonry and has read alot about it. The entire subject of "rituals' means dick all to me so he knows more about it than I do.

White, do take a look at some books by the authors above. Very informative.

See how friendly and non-insulting I can be?

Can you?

Edited August 15, 2007 by Drea

[WestViking]

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

Perhaps you missed the Biblical admonition to treat others as you would like to be treated. Much of the Biblical teachings are about living a responsible life and avoiding temptations. We are taught not to sin and for many, their pleasures involve sin. If there was no ethical conflict, there would be little need for Biblical ethics and far less controversy. Perhaps we should start a thread on “Hedonists and the Bible”.

[kimmy]

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.

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 makes an excellent point here.

Why, after many centuries of tolerating and engaging in slavery, child labour, segregation, "non-personhood" of women, and so on, did Christians begin to change their views on these issues in the just past couple of centuries?

What changed?

The Bible itself didn't change, but maybe wider-spread literacy and greater access to printed material among the common classes changed religious views?

Did some social factor result in a more enlightened interpretation of who "thy neighbor" might encompass?

The explanation that the "Judeo-Christian Ethic" alone was the driving force behind ending these social injustices fails, because for such a long time, it didn't.

-k