Judeo-Christian Ethics; The Gift That Keeps on Giving

[White Doors]

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.

One could argue that the changes started right along with the printing press and Martin Muther's reformation. Prior to this the commoners could nto read and were kept in the dark as to the teachings contained in the bible. They attended masses that they could not understand and places a way too much power in the person they were told that could get them to the after life.

The changes that made this not the case, literacy and the protestant reformation, can be argued have more to do with the modern concept of human rights than anything else. Regardless, it is still based in religion. The masses finally being able to understand and read the bible ushered in this new era.

[M.Dancer]

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

The Judeo - Christian ethic is rather new and is a product of the enlightenment. But your statemenst regarding slavery etc..are somewhat misleading. St. Partrick could be considered one of the first in the Christian world to oppose slavery...and while his driving the snakes out of ireland is mythical. his work ridding the island of slavery isn't. DFor the most part, for the greater part of a millenia, slavery didn't exhist in western Europe (serfdom notwithstanding) until the colonial periods.

Child labour is another issue and we can hardly blame say, the christians of the 12 century for something that wasn't an issue. Child labour as an exploitative issue is a modern product and it's ending is also a modern event. Children working in factories 14 hours a day can't be compared to children working beside their parents on the farm.

Again, segregation as an event is a blip compared to the 4,000 years of Judeo-christian roots.

My belief is that morality and justice evolve. It may sometimes move at a glacial pace or sometimes move quickly...but the roots can be found in our history.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps you missed the Biblical admonition to treat others as you would like to be treated.

Contrary to the widespread belief, the Golden Rule does not appear in the bible.

I think though it is logical to assume that if the Bible admonishes you to treat decntly in spite of how they treat you....

[cybercoma]

The masses finally being able to understand and read the bible ushered in this new era.

Being able to understand the Bible is great. Too bad it's nearly impossible:

Psalm 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

Proverbs 24:17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

The message is pretty clear in both cases and pretty contradictory when looked at side-by-side.

[cybercoma]

Contrary to the widespread belief, the Golden Rule does not appear in the bible.

I think though it is logical to assume that if the Bible admonishes you to treat decntly in spite of how they treat you....

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[jbg]

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

You make an excellent point regarding the effect of greater literacy, and then retreat from it. It seems to me that the combination of greater literacy and the advent of the printing press allowed people to read the Bible for themselves. That may have help spread the ethical values and policies of the Bible, unfiltered by the interpretation of priests.

Thus, a better explanation is that the "ethic" of Judaism and Christianity lay dormant, for all to find. Even though I am NOT a Christian, I find it no accident that the movement to abolish slavery in the US had deeply religious roots.

[jbg]

One could argue that the changes started right along with the printing press and Martin Muther's reformation.

My apologies. I didn't read your post before posting my own, somewhat similar thoughts.

[buffycat]

If these so-called 'judeo-christian' ethics are so wonderful - then how on earth can anyone explain the love of a buddist for his people - or that of a Native for his? Gosh since this grand Judeo-Christian G-d isn't around to scare them into behaving?!

I found this whole thread somewhat sad - that no one else pointed out that there are other faiths, other beliefs which also hold to belief of being kind, working hard and bettering oneself.

How Judeo-Christian centric to think that they have all the answers.

IMO it's old fashioned alturism which accounts for most of our 'ethics', that and the age old ideal of treating others as yourself (these stem IMO from time immemorial - before the G-d's of Judaism, Christianity or otherwise).

One doesn't need religion to understand what is right or wrong - it's pretty self explanitory.

[Guest American Woman]

Contrary to the widespread belief, the Golden Rule does not appear in the bible.

I think though it is logical to assume that if the Bible admonishes you to treat decntly in spite of how they treat you....

"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12 RSV)

In other words, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

[jbg]

The financial and legal corollary (sp) to the Golden Rule is "he who has the gold makes the rules".

[sharkman]

If these so-called 'judeo-christian' ethics are so wonderful - then how on earth can anyone explain the love of a buddist for his people - or that of a Native for his? Gosh since this grand Judeo-Christian G-d isn't around to scare them into behaving?!

I found this whole thread somewhat sad - that no one else pointed out that there are other faiths, other beliefs which also hold to belief of being kind, working hard and bettering oneself.

How Judeo-Christian centric to think that they have all the answers.

IMO it's old fashioned alturism which accounts for most of our 'ethics', that and the age old ideal of treating others as yourself (these stem IMO from time immemorial - before the G-d's of Judaism, Christianity or otherwise).

One doesn't need religion to understand what is right or wrong - it's pretty self explanitory.

Yes, but one needs religion to stop doing what is wrong, and do the right thing more often.

[cybercoma]

one needs religion to stop doing what is wrong

Are you saying the only reason you don't do terrible things is because God is watching you?

[sharkman]

No, with God in my life, I want to be a better person.

[cybercoma]

No, with God in my life, I want to be a better person.

But you said, "one NEEDS religion to stop doing what is wrong." Regardless, does God make you want to be a better person because of the threat of eternal damnation or the reward of heaven? And if those threats/rewards weren't there, would you not be a good person? Do you NEED God for you to do good?

[jefferiah]

But you said, "one NEEDS religion to stop doing what is wrong." Regardless, does God make you want to be a better person because of the threat of eternal damnation or the reward of heaven? And if those threats/rewards weren't there, would you not be a good person? Do you NEED God for you to do good?

No the idea is that no one is capable of entering heaven because of his own goodness, but that true repentance and humility and acceptance of God changes one's heart. And there is mercy and forgiveness.

Was it you who cited a quote which stated in effect...."only religion makes good people do bad things"......

There is no one who is righteous. No not one.

But nonetheless atheist communism was based on good intentions.....so therefore if you wish to think of regular people as being "good" then look at what happened in Russia. Or look how the masses in France went on a beheading crusade in rebellion against that which was status quo. The good intentions of humans, religious or secularly political, result in death quite often.

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

But you said, "one NEEDS religion to stop doing what is wrong." Regardless, does God make you want to be a better person because of the threat of eternal damnation or the reward of heaven? And if those threats/rewards weren't there, would you not be a good person? Do you NEED God for you to do good?

Also the selfish desire to do good (because doing good benefits ourselves) can develop into a deeper moral understanding later. The prodigal son learned his lesson that it was better to be a servant in his Father's home than to be free on his own. The shrewd manager as well, was commended for saving his skin.

Since you seem well versed in things from the Bible....do you remember the place where Jesus says we must "accept" the kingdom of heaven, like a small child. He was not saying we should act like children, as if children are the epitome of innocence. I can remember being a child. I was spiteful, vengeful, selfish etc etc. But you always accept things that are given to you. When you are 7 and you put on your rucksack and threaten to run away, within a few hours you will be back at your table eating the food your parents made for you.

In another thread you mentioned how God turned a woman into a pillar of salt, and said he was vengeful and mean because of this. And also that it was cruel to women somehow, because she happened to be a woman.

God told them if they looked back this would happen. If your mother told you not to eat the mushrooms in the front yard because they are poisonous, but you ignored her and ate them, and you became violently ill, would you then call your mother vengeful?

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

But nonetheless atheist communism was based on good intentions.....so therefore if you wish to think of regular people as being "good" then look at what happened in Russia. Or look how the masses in France went on a beheading crusade in rebellion against that which was status quo. The good intentions of humans, religious or secularly political, result in death quite often.

And religion did nothing to prevent that and god, if it exists and is omnipotent and benevolent, did nothing to stop innocent people from suffering and dying.

[cybercoma]

God told them if they looked back this would happen. If your mother told you not to eat the mushrooms in the front yard because they are poisonous, but you ignored her and ate them, and you became violently ill, would you then call your mother vengeful?

That particular story about Lot's wife shows how unjust the God of the Old Testament is. He turned her into a pillar of salt for simply looking upon Sodom and Gemorrah, yet the night before God allowed Lot to offer up his virgin daughters to the villagers with no recourse. There are countless examples in the Old Testament of such unjust punishments.

Since the Amalekites was a particularly bloody example in the Old Testament, let's use that. God had all of the Amalekites destroyed by Saul's hand, even though these Amalekites were 300 years removed from the ones for which God was issuing the punishment. Not only is that unjust, but Saul was cursed by God for not slaughtering every breathing thing. Perhaps it's really unfair to say this, but not even the Nazis slaughtered every living thing, they just killed people.

How about 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 where God kills Uzza for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant when an ox stumbles?

Can we agree that there clearly is no justice in that? I think most normal people would.

Say, perhaps we should start another thread to discuss these things, since they don't really have anything to do with the initial topic. I enjoy seeing your explanations on these things.

[jefferiah]

That particular story about Lot's wife shows how unjust the God of the Old Testament is. He turned her into a pillar of salt for simply looking upon Sodom and Gemorrah, yet the night before God allowed Lot to offer up his virgin daughters to the villagers with no recourse. There are countless examples in the Old Testament of such unjust punishments.

Since the Amalekites was a particularly bloody example in the Old Testament, let's use that. God had all of the Amalekites destroyed by Saul's hand, even though these Amalekites were 300 years removed from the ones for which God was issuing the punishment. Not only is that unjust, but Saul was cursed by God for not slaughtering every breathing thing. Perhaps it's really unfair to say this, but not even the Nazis slaughtered every living thing, they just killed people.

How about 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 where God kills Uzza for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant when an ox stumbles?

Can we agree that there clearly is no justice in that? I think most normal people would.

Say, perhaps we should start another thread to discuss these things, since they don't really have anything to do with the initial topic. I enjoy seeing your explanations on these things.

No actually God warned them that this is what would happen if they were to look back. If I warn you that eating amanita mushrooms could kill you and you then eat one......

[jefferiah]

And religion did nothing to prevent that and god, if it exists and is omnipotent and benevolent, did nothing to stop innocent people from suffering and dying.

God did nothing to prevent humanity from killing his own Son.

Free will, Cybercoma.

Have you ever read The Brothers Karamazov?

New thread coming right up

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[sharkman]

But you said, "one NEEDS religion to stop doing what is wrong." Regardless, does God make you want to be a better person because of the threat of eternal damnation or the reward of heaven? And if those threats/rewards weren't there, would you not be a good person? Do you NEED God for you to do good?

Neither.

When you comprehend the reality of God, his reality makes you want to do what is right. Threats/rewards don't motivate, God does. Do you lie? Even just little white ones? Do you gossip about others at work? Do you get angry when you feel your rights have been violated in such ways as being cut off on the freeway or someone budding in line? When you have God directing and empowering you, these instances appear altogether different than they would otherwise.

Also, I said one needs religion to stop doing wrong in the context of the previous remark which said one doesn't need religion to understand right and wrong. I was showing where one DOES need God

[Drea]

It's not god that calms you down if you've been cut off by a bad driver. It's you. Your own psyche.

But if you want to call your own psyche "god" and give credit to an outside source (instead of yourself) go ahead.

People don't need god. People need a calm psyche.

What if I don't "comprehend the reality of god"? Will I not be able to calm down? Do I need god to calm down? Of course not. I am responsible for my actions and reactions, not god.

[Guest American Woman]

.... I was showing where one DOES need God

Not everyone "needs" God in their lives. For example, China is an atheist nation and I find the Chinese to be wonderful people, so they seem to be doing ok without God in their lives. I don't understand people who speak in absolutes-- you say people need God, Drea says people don't -- when it's different for everyone. Why do so many people have to think they are right instead of just respecting people's beliefs?

Edited August 18, 2007 by American Woman

[Drea]

You're right.

Some people need an external conscience (god) while some do not. Believing in god is not a bad thing. Religion (the forcing/coercing/cajoling/begging/marketing of others to bend to a certain belief) IS a bad thing.

That's why I respect Freemasonry. All beliefs are equal. No one god is better or more "true" than any other god. In Freemasonry one only need believe in a "god" of some kind. That god could be a bearded fellow on a cloud, an alien from another planet or a force within nature.

I like the latter

[sharkman]

Not everyone "needs" God in their lives. For example, China is an atheist nation and I find the Chinese to be wonderful people, so they seem to be doing ok without God in their lives. I don't understand people who speak in absolutes-- you say people need God, Drea says people don't -- when it's different for everyone. Why do so many people have to think they are right instead of just respecting people's beliefs?

You just spoke in absolutes concerning the Chinese when you say you don't understand those who speak in absolutes.

I am certainly willing to let others make their own life decisions, and wanting to explain some things about God in response to certain critical comments doesn't mean I am forcing God on anyone.