El Jeffe has still utterly failed to show any support whatever for his assertions that the the US constitution was influenced in any way by the ten commandments or any other part of of the Bible.
Thomas Jefferson did not believe in miracles or the divinity of Christ. In fact, he once formulated his own version of the gospels (called the “Jefferson Bible”) in which he removed all the miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection.
“Don’t kill people” and “don’t steal” are universal ideals. They existed long before Christianity and long before Judaism.
Islam puts the same value on human life as Christianity.
If you want to play the “quote” game with the Koran vs. the Bible I assure you I can provide MANY samples from the Bible where God demands the murders of women, children, old people and infants. I will hold off on the cites until challenged because it’s a pain in the ass to go cut and paste them all, but I will do it if anyone wants me to.
If you want to limit it to the NT, then may I ask what happened to the “Judeo” part of Judeo-Christian values? Is Judeo-Christian just another word for Christian.
The “family values” endorsed in the Bible include Polygamy, incest, sexual slavery, spousal murder, child-murder and rape. Want cites?
The Bible does not really even endorse monogamy for men, but only for women.
IMO the political use of the term “family values” is basically code for anti-gay, anti-abortion, and woman stays home.
Oh, and how come conservatives always forget that Jesus said to PAY YOUR TAXES even if they’re unjust ("…render unto Caesar…" remember). There’s a Christian value we never hear anything about.
Yep. “Judeo-Christian” is a feel-good term for “Christian.” You’ll notice that a good number of the “Judeo-Christian” folks are out to convert the Jews, and everyone else for that matter, to Christianity.
In short: there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian.
ElJeffe, there seems to be some confusion - how much of what you’re saying do you personally believe, and how much are you playing Devil’s Advocate?
My apologies if anything I put to you was offensive. I’ve been reading your posts as what you, personally, believe. You may replace any you-specific “you’s” in my posts with Christian-specific “you’s.”
—Commiting violence in Jesus’s name isn’t the same as Jesus advocating violence.—
No, but gee, inventing and promising the ultimate conception of violence doesn’t count? All his references to bringing swords, to braking apart and rejecting families, to burning brush, to let those who will not serve me be killed?
It’s simply disingenous to claim that violent Christians are the ones misreading. I have no opinion on who’s misreading and who isn’t, but I’m not just going to pick the most appealing reading because it plays well to the modern crowd.
As for JC morals in the U.S.: again, no one said that they don’t play an influence in the long history of civil law. But they are part of an incredibly long tradition of legal thought that has its roots in many many other things. And the original claim was primarily focused on the founders. The idea that Ten Commandments was a major inspirtation for the philosophy of our nation is flat-out bullplop. This isn’t a matter of supposition. You CAN read what the founders had to say about the Constitution, about the philosophy behind it. You CAN read about the history of its formation, what was debated, and so on. You CAN read Jefferson’s work on the British Common Law, which concludes that it has nothing to do with Christianity (it developed gradually out of the mercantilist tradition). You can CAN read the Federalist Papers, and the works of Madison.
Not everything is religiously inspired. When people get together to talk about whether soliders should be quarted in their homes, they generaly have other things to discuss than how much they love Jesus or how they should keep the Sabbath holy, even if they ARE Christians. The whole point of the secular government that the founders created was that religion was free to exist outside of it: the government would deal with secular matters.
The major founders’ opinions about religion were actually a little detestable from my point of view. They thought that it was useful for the common people who were too dumb to stay orderly without it. They thought it was superstition (and even blasphemy). They had a lot of nasty things to say that were a little oer the top. They weren’t just singularly tolerant Christians who thought that people should find out about the importance of worshiping Jesus by themselves. They weren’t Christians at all. Even Washington, who went to church with his wife, probably wasn’t.
Are there laws that have distinctly religious history? Sure. Sodomy, bestiality, sure (though these are hardly from the Ten Commandments: they and their emphasises are distinctly modern). But our court system? Our theories of evidence and burden of proof? Our trade laws? Even things like murder? Rape? All of these things have much stronger modern reasons and developments that have little if anything to do with the Bible or Christian values in particular. Do you seriously think that if not for the Ten Commandments any workable society would tolerate murder?
Apos, what part of the Bible did I “interpret?” I was only attempting to show that the “values” espoused in the Bible had little or nothing to do with the US constitution OR with modern concepts of “morality.”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mattymillhouse *
**it appears that many of the posters are here just to bash Christianity and/or Judeo-Christian values. if that’s what this post is for, let me know and i’ll go type in another forum.
**
If there is something in the Bible that they strongly object to, this is the place to voice their opinion on it. If you only want one point of view with no dissension, there are plenty of religious cites that will accommodate you, as well as many Churches, but around here, people are looking for others with different opinions to debate with.
b]The Ten Commandments was not the only, or even the main inspiration, for the Constitution, but it was a biggie. **
If they were inspired by the TC, I think they would have made sure we didn’t worship any other gods but Jehovah, and wouldn‘t have allowed for religious freedom. There is nothing that inspired them to mention anything about not doing work on the Sabbath either. Some of the other Ten Commandments are just as ludicrous. Not making any graven image or likeness in heaven, hell or in water and it is just as stupid as not using this fiends name in vain.
…limiting marriage to a single man and woman, are strong evidence of J-C influence
I think the traditional family J-C views that you and ElJeffe are wanting, are not connected with any of the main characters in the Bible though. Give us some family role models in the Bible that had those J-C values. Virtually ever central character in the OT was not only a polygamous, but a mass murderer to boot, not to mention adultery, incest and homosexuality also occurring. When this book states “thou shalt not kill” just exactly what are they referring too? It didn’t seem to apply to General Moses and Joshua, David, Samson, and the whole lot, especially if it was a different race they were trying to kill off, nor did it matter if it was man, woman or child or fetus. Just so long as they worshiped this god, it didn’t seem to apply so long as they were carrying out Jehovah’s directives. One of the central characters of the OT is David, and he had many lovers. If you don’t understand his relationship with Jonathan, this is where the original Hebrew will help understand what went on here if you still don‘t get it. Throughout the OT, not just multiple wives, but multiple mistresses too place. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 mistresses. So explain “thou shalt not commit adultery” to us and put that in those traditional J-C family values that you, I suppose, are wanting to get back to. From what I remember from Job, he might come close to being a good family man, but we’ve all seen how this god treated him. Jesus was a celibate who wasn’t the least bit interested in women, and didn‘t have any children if the Bible gives an accurate depiction. And I don’t think his relationship with his own family members was all that great. If he really did say what is in Luke 14:26, and some of the other scriptures; then pro-family he was not. He had another agenda. He wasn’t interested in family; he thought the world was coming to an end soon. Paul doesn’t qualify as a family role model either. So where in your god’ s name are you getting a traditional family out of this book with these so-called J-C ethics?!
Esprix, here’s the official disclaimer, giving my personal opinion on the matter:
As I said, I’m not a Christian. I have issues with many tenets of the Bible, and choose not to believe in Christianity for several reasons, some moral, some logical, and some of the “it doesn’t feel right” variety. That being said, I have great respect for Christianity, and for Christians in general, and I don’t like seeing Christianity dismissed out of hand as being a tool of the simple-minded to justify prejudice and violence, which seemed to me to be the viewpoint offered by the first few posters here. I see too many people around me Christian-bashing - I lived with a few of them, and it wasn’t much fun - and I tend to be defensive about it, in the same way I’m defensive of anyone who’s being picked on for unfair reasons.
I think that Christianity is, generally speaking, a good religion, preaches a lot of nice things, and does a lot of people a lot of good. It’s sometimes - even frequently - used as an excuse by people to do many cruel and evil things, but I think that says more about those people than about the religion in general. I’d still welcome anyone to tell me where in the NT (most theologians I’ve spoken with will assert that the NT is where people are supposed to get their moral system, not the OT) you can find justification for killing, racism, hypocricy, deceit, or any other vice. Yes, the bible says homosexuality is a sin. This is one of the many areas where I disagree with what the bible teaches. However, you’ll also note that Jesus makes a big deal about “hate the sin, love the sinner” - even if the person is lying, cheating turd, treat them with love and compassion. Thus the people who go around gay-bashing aren’t really behaving in a Christian manner, are they?
So what about my stance on Islam? Well, I have some problems with Islam. I think the majority of muslims - certainly the vast majority of muslims living outside the middle east - are wonderful people. I think they focus on the good in Islam, and that’s fine. However, it is my understanding, based on talking with religious scholars, personal readings, and the like, that Islam has some unsavory stuff in it. In this way, an Islamic fundamentalist is potentially more dangerous than a Christian fundamentalist. Misinterpreting “the world was created in 7 days” means that you’ll make a lot of claims that scientists will make fun of. Misinterpreting “kill the unbelievers” means that some innocent people are going to die. At best, the Qu’ran is an innocent text that seems more likely to mislead people into commiting atrocities than this Bible is. At worst, it’s a tutorial on genocide, compared to the Bible, which is at worst a tutorial on hypocricy. (IANA bible scholar, but it seems that while the Chrisitan OT God killed a lot of people, he didn’t really endorse that; sort of a “do as I say, not as I do” schtick.)
So there you go. I’m not a bigot, I’m not a muslim-hater, I just have some views based on information gathering that may or may not be accurate.
Now you may all bash me in a more enlightened manner.
Nobody said they were. These “J-C” views are based on how the Bible teaches people to live, not based on how the families in the Bible lived. Though if you had to pick a person to go by, I’d say Jesus is a pretty good role-model.
Could you please point me to the school whose curriculum includes coursework on how to give a blowjob? (Damn, and here I though school was usually boring!)
There will always be disagreement on how to interpret any part of the Bible, but there are certainly violent-sounding passages in the New Testament:
Perhaps more to the point, it is an error to suppose that Christian ethics have ever been reducible to what is in the New Testament alone.
Another passage which has been interpreted in widely diverging ways:
You yourself have repeatedly mentioned the Ten Commandments as being a central part of Christian ethics, which are of course given in the Old Testament; specifically in Exodus 20:1-17 (among other places). Another famous verse from Exodus, best known in the traditional King James translation, is chapter 22, verse 18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” That verse certainly had an influence on Christian ethics once upon a time.
sorry to have gone so long. work and all that. i’ll try and offer some responses, although i should point out right up front that i am not a Biblical scholar (in fact, i’m not even close), nor do i profess to be a scholar on the history of the American system of government. as if that wasn’t pretty clear in what i’ve said so far. [blushing]
having said that, i really didn’t want to pick up this torch, but i’ll do my best. sorry it’s so long, but i’ve been gone a long time, and there are lots of posts to respond to.
certainly, it’s one of my pet peeves when people assert their arguments dogmatically. i shouldn’t have used that language. however, i have given a few specifics.
somebody raised the issue of the Federalist Papers. this was the one that popped to mind (there may be more).
from Federalist 43:
(emphasis added)
i could go on, but i don’t think that “my list is bigger than your list” is any way to win an argument. plus, i’m lazy.
i think what’s notable here is that the language reflects the “all Men are endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator” language of the Decl. of Ind. thus, there is at least an expressed notion that rights come down from a divine creator (i.e., divine rights, if not divine rule). and what’s the most reasonable assumption as to what these people meant by “nature’s God” and “Creator?” the Christian God, of course.
you’re absolutely correct. religious freedom is one of the fundamental tenets of our system of government. but as stated by ElJeffe, religious freedom is not necessarily anathema to the New Testament. the NT says that people should worship the “true God,” but it doesn’t say that it’s ok to force people to worship the “true God.” nor does the NT advocate punishing people for not worshiping the “true God.” it advocates witnessing, which is a far cry from stoning non-believers.
i think (and again, i should stress that i am not an Biblical scholar or a government history expert), that this may stem from a respect for all beliefs usually present in western culture, which is at least reflective of New Testament values.
i know, it’s hardly definitive to point out similarities, but since i can’t really interview the founders, it’s probably as good as i can do.
a very good point. you are absolutely correct, and to be honest, i hadn’t thought about this aspect. but i don’t think that American theories on the origins of government need to be identical to the Biblical theory of divine right because i’m just talking about influence here. and i’ll try to be more clear: obviously, one of the revolutionary aspects of the American system of government is the fact that it was not institutionalized religion, and did not profess to exist simply by divine right. thus, there was a divorce between government and religion. but during and since that time, the government has been elected by a majority of its citizens, the majority of which were usually Christians. even those elected representatives don’t need to be Jewish or Christian to share Judeo-Christian values. they only need to be surrounded by J-C values to be influenced by them. and the elected representatives have passed numerous laws based on morality (as opposed to fiscal policy, etc.). and the majority of those “morality” laws have reflected the large influence Judeo-Christian morals have had in our society (see the examples cited previously - adultery, sodomy, beastiality, etc.).
we might be failing to connect because some people equate “religious influence” with “evangelism.” that’s not what i’m trying to say. i don’t think the government is trying to force Christian religion on anyone. i just think there’s an influence there, exhibited by the shared values shown most strongly in the legislation on morality.
i haven’t read this. and frankly, this may settle the debate, especially since the best i can do is point out that most western societies have been predominantly Christian, and there are a number of similarities between NT values and our laws. also, Jefferson was probably a lot smarter than i am. i would be interested to read this. can you tell me what it’s called?
another valid point. but if the whole point of our secular government was to deal solely with secular matters, then why do we have so many morality laws? (for the record, i don’t agree with these laws)
New Testament examples? i would be interested to see those.
“Judeo-Christian” are those things that are historically related to both Judaism and Christianity (obviously). those similarities do not, as you state, include child-murder, sexual slavery, rape, etc. if i’m wrong, i’d appreciate a cite.
i want to limit my discussion to NT because it’s what i’m most familiar with, and because i think the NT influenced our morals and laws. i don’t know enough about Judaism to do more than damage the debate. if someone else knows more, I’d be happy to see their input.
sheesh! there you go again, attributing motivations to me that i haven’t espoused. if you’re asking what i think (which you obviously aren’t, but let’s pretend), i’d say that i’m in my 20’s and have only been a member of one family, so i have no idea what “traditional J-C family values” means. were families in the 50’s more virtuous? i have no idea. but if it means putting the children first, and trying to make sure the parents give the kids enough attention, then yes, i think “family values” are swell. unfortunately, that’s not always possible, and lucky for us, parents are usually pretty resourceful and kids are pretty durable and will usually turn out ok no matter what situation we put them in.
as for your challenge that the Bible is polygamous, let’s try this:
i think that shows that, at least for Christians, polygamy was not an option.
i’ve never heard that disobeying tax laws was a conservative platform. in fact, i thought the stereotypical conservative was a “law and order” type. or are you actually talking about repealing tax laws, or reducing taxes. because i don’t think Jesus said anything about that. if i’m wrong, or if i misunderstand your argument, please let me know.
Apos, you raise a number of good points, not the least of which is that i may have misconstrued the debate. i’m willing to roll over on the argument that Ten Commandments were the primary influence for the Constitution. i certainly can’t come up with any convincing arguments in favor of it.
further, i certainly don’t think that our founding fathers were all Christians, or that their primary concern in drafting the Constitution or most initial legislation was “What Would Jesus Do?” (especially since the Bible offers very little that i’ve found on the separation of powers or 401k reform). all i’ve been trying to point out is that there is a lot of collision between Christian ethics and American morals and laws that probably aren’t a coincidence. and i think it would be a mistake to say that just because some of the founders were not Christians, the Bible and/or Judeo-Christian ethics couldn’t have influenced their values. you don’t have to be a Christian to have the same values as Christians. (for the record, Christians are not any more ethically pure than non-Christians. i know some Christians that are pretty lousy ethically, and i know plenty of non-Christians that are as ethically pure as Pollyana.) my point is that western societies, and especially American society, are influenced by J-C ethics, even if the people aren’t inordinately Jewish or Christian.
uhh, that’s my point. just as i shouldn’t run away from people that have a problem with Christianity, you shouldn’t break down into hystrionics and accusations at the mere mention of Christianity. reasoned discussion is all i’m looking for. if the people here aren’t interested in that, then I’m not interested in wasting my time.
ahh, now i see. thanks for clearing that up. by the way, does calling God a “fiend” mean that you acknowledge His existence? (kidding, kidding)
sorry, i don’t speak “the original Hebrew.” and if you really can read Hebraic, and have read the Bible in its original Hebrew, then i think you ought to know that “thou shalt not kill” is actually a mistranslation of the Bible’s “thou shalt not murder.” http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
hope that helps.
I was going to post again, but I think matty’s last post covered everything I was going to say, plus more, and far more eloquently than I would have phrased it. So… umm… what she said.
Well, I suppose we are making progress. We’ve gone from crypto-theocratic “The Ten Commandments are the basis of our laws” style rhetoric to “Gee, historically most Americans have been Christians, so Christian ideas have probably influenced American culture”, which of course they have. For example, people on both sides of the slavery debate before the Civil War quoted the Bible to justify their positions.
You really do need to read up on American Deists sometime. “Laws of nature and nature’s God” is very much Deist language. One confusing thing is that sometimes Deists would claim to be “true Christians”. Now, one could argue that if they called themselves Christians, they were Christians. However, you need to be aware that Thomas Jefferson (to cite one example) did not believe in, among other things, the Trinity, original sin, or the virgin birth, miraculous powers, resurrection, or deity of Jesus (see Jefferson’s letter to William Short, October 31, 1819). He also stated that he didn’t even agree with all of the things which he did believe Jesus to have taught (for example, Jefferson said that he was a “Materialist”, and that he disagreed with Jesus on the question of repentance alone or good works regarding the forgiveness of sins). (See Jefferson’s letter to William Short, April 13, 1820.) Remember, this is the man who wrote those references to the “Creator” and “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence; whatever he may have called himself, historically most Christians would not have considered his God to be their God.
Your post was so close to mine in what I was going to post, that there is no point in uploading it. Half the scriptures you used, I had in my post too including Matthew 5: 17-19 pertaining to the law. You scare me, man… Well, I’ll go work on another one.
