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.
As a family man? He was a wanderer. He advocated becoming a eunuch for kingdom’s sake. If you didn’t hate your own father, mother, children, brothers and sisters, and even your own life, then you couldn’t be his disciple. He came here to bring not peace, but a sword, and to turn mother against daughter, and father against son. He wanted everyone damned eternally that didn’t believe in him. His treatment of his mother wasn’t the kindest. He thought he was God. He thought the world was coming to an end, and said not to give any thought for tomorrow, and other faults to his teachings that I don‘t want to get into here. Those around him questioned his sanity. Since as you say, you’re not a Christian and reject it for many reasons including those logical, then you probably don’t believe in his miracles either. And if this is the case, what is so admirable about being a charlatan? His teachings on the whole leave a lot to be desired.
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (NIV, Matthew 19:3-9)
i think that shows that, at least for Christians, polygamy was not an option.
This pericope, seems to be addressing divorce more than polygamy. Read just a few more verses until you get to 12 in that same chapter. Is becoming an eunuch an option? Origen thought so.
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."
I have not read the Bible in its original Hebrew, but have Strong’s concordance, and use various Bible references and sources like most around here. When “thou shall no kill” is used in the Ten Commandments it is the word used in the KJV. The New Revised Standard uses “murder”, but then puts in a footnote, “or kill.” Strong’s concordance shows the Hebrew word of “ratsach” to mean to “dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), espec. to murder: --put to death, kill,” and that is the Hebrew word used in the Ten commandments. Not sure what good that does. It still doesn’t excuse God’s favorites from murder, but they do it.
You simply assumed that because they are related in the Bible, you can call them values. You interpreted what Jesus meant by “render unto Caesar.” And so on. I mean, good grief, fundamentalists aren’t usually as sure as you are about what everything in the Bible means.
matty, I’m not sure what remains of your argument here. I mean, is your argument really akin to: “Bob is a known believer in UFOs. Therefore, when Bob builds a chair, his chair-building is distinctly influenced by UFOs.”
Yes, Christianity was far and away the religion of America, is, and probably always shall be. But this is no argument for your position. Our systems of laws, our philosophies about government, HAVE extensive explanation and documentation, and they are not particularly interested in Judeo-Christian values: they are obsessed instead with Enlightenment philosophy, natural law, logic, and Machevellian political theory.
No, Apos, I am saying that what conservatives like to define as “Judeo-Christian” values do not have biblical support.
Matty, you can’t say that J-C values must relate to both Jewish and Christian tradition and then exclude the Jewish part. Does the OT count or doesn’t it? MEBuckner posted some of the more fiery NT verses. I assure the OT has much, much worse to offer.
I’m still waiting for someone to demonstrate a specific relationship between either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament and the American socio-political system, constitutional or otherwise.
—I am saying that what conservatives like to define as “Judeo-Christian” values do not have biblical support.—
Says you, with your strangely dogmatic interpretation of the Bible. Sure, conservatives may have equally dogmatic ideas, but your assured negative reading is certainly no better.
Often in the US I hear politicians as well as some religious folk proclaim this: “We need to get back to our traditional family JC values” or something very close to this. What was so great about that time period? I’ve missed the family value portion of what they are supposedly talking about in the Bible. Is there someone in particular that you try to emulate, or some family role models that qualify?**
For those of us who don’t follow the J/C ethics/morality system, it’s like a slap in the face. It implies that anything other than J/C values is causing the downfall of the Republic.
It also sounds dangerously close to legally establishing the existing hegemony of J/C values.
Well, for one thing, you’re taking the notion of Jesus out of context. According to the Bible, he was the son of God. Therefore, in the context in which he is presented, he wasn’t a random loon with delusions of grandeur, he was a nice guy who performed some miracles and told us all to be nice to each other, and oh yeah, his Dad said that anyone who doesn’t believe is kinda damned. Not Jesus’s fault though, he didn’t make the rules. What happened to “Don’t shoot the messenger”? And I don’t seem to recall Jesus telling people to hate their families and go around killing people. That must have been in the Book of Not Bloody Likely.
In a paradoxical, weird sort of way, who Jesus really was isn’t as important as how he’s presented in the Bible. Jesus, could’ve been a 50 year old pedophile who smoked pot all day long, but that’s not how he’s portrayed. And since the Bible is considered the definitive account of How the World Works, it has the final word. Since the Bible doesn’t say “Jesus was a loon”, as far as Christianity is concerned, he wasn’t.
Now certainly who Jesus really was has great relevence on a grander scale - if he wasn’t as the Bible says he was, then Christianity is no more useful than Greek mythology as the sort of cosmic user’s manual it’s presented as. However, nobody on this world is ever going to know one way or the other (until they die, at least), so that’s all secondary.
This seems to be the mentality of those who choose to be offended when they see a Christmas tree in their office. If someone mentions their religion, then dammit, they’re oppressing me!
Let me ask you: If the politicians instead got up there and said, “We should not kill each other, or steal from each other, and we should love our kids, and do what’s right for them, and married couples are probably best suited for the task, and adultery is kind of a no-no, and…” would you be offended by it? Why is it bad to use “JC values” as shorthand for all that other stuff? Just because the term “JC” is linked to Jesus?
The vast majority of people in this nation follow, more or less, a Christian moral system. People deviate from it somewhat, but by and large, it’s what they follow. Does Christianity have a monopoly on all these moral beliefs? Of course not. But just because you choose to give your moral system another name doesn’t mean it’s not essentially Christian in nature.
Wow, that’s pretty darned paranoid, if by that you mean “Legally mandating Christianity”. If, instead, you mean “Using Christian values as a basis for our laws”, then I have some really sad news for you…
Jeff
ElJeffe, please scroll up and read the NT cites from MEBuckner. pay special attention to Luke 14:26…never mind I’ll make it easy.
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. – Luke 14:26
There ya go. Straight from the book of “not bloody likely.”
I know you intended this as irony, Tracer, but you would be amused – or maybe not! – to know that at least one poster over on the Pizza Parlor seriously suggested that teaching exctly that would be one of the consequences of sex education other than an abstinence-only basis! (Sorry I can’t link to it; it’s in the Beverage Bar, which is restricted to adult registered members there.)
—Well, for one thing, you’re taking the notion of Jesus out of context.—
Is that your explanation for those who do violence in the name of Christianity too? When all evidence to the contrary suggests that they too were serious and sincere readers of the Bible, and they really DID believe that it advocated, for instance, killing witches and believers?
You can’t have read much of the Bible if these passages are new to you. Go back and read them so you can be sure that no one is lying, at least, about their prescence (but make sure to use the King James: it’s the only version Satan hasn’t fooled with yet…) I do, however, take an equally dubious view on those who interpret these passages TO definately advocate violence or poo eating, or whatever. Though god’s order to eat poo is definately one of the funniest sections in the whole Bible…
careful. the “progress” could be the result of me speaking now instead of someone else. i never thought the Ten Commandments were the predominating force in American government, so i haven’t really backed off that.
again, you’re quite right. there are definitely verses with violent language in the NT, and especially in the OT, and interpretations of those passages vary. i do, however, think there is a right and wrong interpretation. i also think there is a difference between a Biblical passage that says “God is going to kick some ass,” and “you should kick some ass.” so i could try to explain away much of the violence from the Biblical passages by putting them in context, but 1) that wouldn’t be fair, since there aren’t any Muslims here to defend the passages quoted from the Koran, and 2) i don’t think it would matter because i don’t think that God has changed from the OT to the NT. however, i do think God’s covenant changed. thus, the rules for how people are supposed to live and worship changed in the NT. so while i don’t think God is the peace and love hippie many people say he is, i think the rules from the NT that say that we should try to be loving and forgiving trump the rules of the OT that say “stone the adulterers.”
i think we’ve already established that people have misquoted and misused the Bible for all sorts of dastardly things. but that doesn’t mean that the Bible is flawed any more than it means that “a catcher in the rye” is flawed or my ex-girlfriend’s cake recipe was flawed. it just means people’s interpretations are flawed.
i’m (somewhat) familiar with the Deists. i’m also willing to concede that Jefferson and Franklin and Adams and many other founders did not look at the Bible or Jesus in the same way that I or many other Christians do (my own beliefs sure don’t comply with many other Christians, and i would have been surprised if Jefferson was a hard-core Catholic, since he wasn’t orthodox in many of his other beliefs). in fact, most Christians have different takes on the Bible, which is why there are so many denominations of Christians.
but again, that’s not the point. we’re not talking about whether Jefferson meant “God” with all the same implications as most Christians. we’re talking about whether he was influenced by J-C morality and ethics in his use of “God” and whether that influenced his input on developing our government. he doesn’t need to be a dyed-in-the-wool Lutheran to be a Christian, and he doesn’t even need to be a Christian to be influenced by Christian and NT morality. and judging by your letter, it appears that he was. (see his references to "correct morality,” etc.) my understanding of the Jefferson Bible is that he got rid of all the miracles and stuff, and left only what he saw as the correct moral philosophy espoused by Jesus (disclaimer: I’ve never read it, so i could be way off). so Jefferson may not have been a Christian, but he at least agreed with the moral philosophies they espoused.
John, i think we’d probably be on the same side of a debate on Constitutional interpretation, but i think your literal interpretation of the Bible is a little surprising. you strike me as very intelligent, and i have a hard time believing you could read these passages with the same lack of comprehension as those idiots that used the Bible to condone slavery. i have a feeling that your Joe Friday “just the facts, ma’am” interpretation is to prove a point, but since I’d rather not waste my time putting all those passages in their proper context, and since i think you probably already know what i’d say, let’s just assume i’ve said it and move on. if you re-read those passages and still can’t figure out what’s going on, let me know and i’ll try and break down the metaphors.
man, i hope not. that would be a terrible argument. i think my argument is more akin to “Bob is a known believer in the power of pyramids, and that belief apparently influenced the way he built his chairs, as evidenced by the pyramids and pyramid-like structures in his chairs.”
certainly, one problem with my argument is that similarity does not equal causation. I’m willing to concede that. and that may be giving up the ghost right there, since I’ve been able to do little more than point out a few references to “God/Creator,” the continuing presence of Christian God in American culture, and a few similarities between American and J-C laws. so essentially, I’d have a hard time proving that the NT was a greater influence on American law than, say, the Code of Hammurabi or Martha Stewart’s Living (I’d definitely lose that last one). honestly, I’m surprised at how little I’ve been able to come up with. but my inability to come up with solid citations off the top of my head was one of the reasons i didn’t think i was the guy to carry off this debate. maybe someone with more knowledge would do better. maybe someone with more knowledge would know better.
i think i said that J-C includes items shared by both Judaism and Christianity. I certainly don’t mean to exclude Judaism from our debate, but i feel uncomfortable defending a position i neither believe in nor understand well enough to muster a cogent argument (I’m having enough trouble doing that for Christianity). if you want to talk about Judaism, please don’t let me stop you. i just won’t be able to respond. however, i don’t think it matters, since what people mean by “family values” is fairly evident, and any related reference to J-C ethics is pretty much extraneous.
have you even been reading the other posts?
by the way, ElJeffe, i appreciate the compliment, but for what it’s worth, i’m a guy. [cue the music from “the Crying Game”]
—so while i don’t think God is the peace and love hippie many people say he is, i think the rules from the NT that say that we should try to be loving and forgiving trump the rules of the OT that say “stone the adulterers.”—
Many people are happy to both stone adulterers while being loving and forgiving of them. Of course, you are now displaying exactly what hurts your case most: the fact that your interpretation of the Bible leads you to conclude that other interpretations are wrong or “misquotes.”
—so Jefferson may not have been a Christian, but he at least agreed with the moral philosophies they espoused.—
Some of them, indeed he did. But that doesn’t mean he thought these teachings were the basis of law. Again, you’re acting as if Jefferson, like Jesus, was a figure for whom we have only tangential references and quotes, who’s state of mind we can only guess at. But that’s nonsense: we have TONS of writings by Jefferson, to Jefferson, about Jefferson by his contemporaries, etc. If we want to know what he thought, we can look directly at what he SAID he thought, in great detail.
Jefferson’s “God” was distinctly and definately NOT the Christian god. Jefferson, in fact, considered Christian theology BLASPHEMOUS to his conception of God and Nature. His God was a world-creator who had nothing to do with human affairs, and no interest of them. To even consider that it might, in Jefferson’s mind, was the height of egotism, as was the idea that it would go around playing human, forgiving people, and performing parlor tricks. To him, moral laws were things that could be worked out using reason by looking at nature.
According to Chritian theology, Jesus did make the rules, being as how he was (or is) God and all.
Yeah, a lot of people, including a lot of nominal Christians, don’t really seem to know what the Bible actually says. The next time you check in to a motel, you might want to try doing a little reading, although be advised motels always have the King James version, which can be tough sledding.
It’s offensive because it implies that atheist or pagan values must be to kill and steal and cheat on our spouses. Not killing and not stealing and so on aren’t specifically Judeo-Christian; they’re common to all sane religions and philosophies and worldviews. The only things in the Ten Commandments which are specifically and unequivocally Judeo-Christian are the parts which we don’t allow as the basis for our legal system or general public morality: you must worship this specific God in this specific way on this specific day of the week. (Whichever day of the week that may be.)
I could with just as much justice say “The vast majority of people in this country follow, more or less, a humanist moral system; people deviate from it somewhat, but by and large, it’s what they follow. Does Secular Humanism have a monopoly on all these moral beliefs? Of course not. But just because you choose to give your moral system another name doesn’t mean it’s not essentially humanist in nature.”
Indeed, if you asked most Americans, “Can a person be a good person regardless of what religion they practice or religious beliefs they have?”, many if not most would probably answer yes. Historically, this was not the Judeo-Christian view, but it’s much closer to a humanistic one. Ironically, many Americans unfortunately seem to think that the answer to that question is “yes”, unless you’re talking about atheists–being a member of some recognized non-Christian world religion, or having some sort of personal spiritual beliefs, makes you OK, but not having any religious or spiritual beliefs at all is still threatening to many people. Referring to the common moral decencies as “Judeo-Christian” does not help dispel this, which is why many non-believers find it objectionable.
apparently someone actually does need to put this into proper perspective. Jesus is using something Biblical scholars and English majors call “metaphor.” he doesn’t actually mean that you should hate your mother and father, wife and children. in fact, he says in other sections to honor your mother and father, and to love and respect your wife, etc.
what he means is that you should put your faith first and foremost in your life, and let your faith dictate your relationships with everyone else. otherwise, someone could say that he’s a God-fearing Christian, but that his abusive relationship with his wife is “just my relationship with my wife” or “more important to me than my relationship with God.” he’s saying you can’t put limits on when and how you’re a Christian. it’s either all the way or not at all.
i realize that lots of people will have differing interpretations of every Bible provision. however, i think that if you’re trying to interpret the Bible, as opposed to poking holes in it, you’ll be able to explain individual Bible verses in the context of the entire Bible in a way that doesn’t contradict itself.
So you must begin with the assumption that the Bible does not in fact contradict itself? Why? The Bible was written by many people over many centuries; there’s no a priori reason to think those different people could not have had contradictory views on things.
Not all “Biblical contradictions” pointed out by atheists necessarily hold up to scrutiny as actual contradictions; but the intellectual and semantic contortions gone to by defenders of the view that the Bible cannot contain any contradictions are frequently astonishing.
i don’t understand this. why does admitting that different people have different interpretations hurt my argument? there doesn’t need to be one interpretation of the NT for it to influence government, does there?
fair enough. the argument posited by many Christians is that the Bible is flawless and is the word of God handed down to the folks transcribing it, and any apparent contradictions are the result of improper interpretations. i don’t necessarily believe that. but i do think you have to start with the assumption that the Bible isn’t ridiculous. one person can’t say “love your mom and pop” in one part, and then turn around and say “hate your mom and pop” without a reason.
A majority of Jews I know consider the term “Judeo-Christian” to indicate that Christians want to co-opt them into agreeing with things that are not in fact a part of their faith, their beliefs, or their practices; they consider it a sop to diversity that does not actually respect their differences.