Before I really begin I want to define what I mean by Judeo-Christian sexual ethic (JCSE). Some argue that a JCSE is a repressive sexual ethic that teaches people sex should be feared and that it's inherently wrong or bad. I think this reaction is understandable as many people treated sex this way. However I don't think that was the original intent of this view. The JCSE is supposed to communicate that sex is a physical act that is inherently more intimate and emotional than almost any other physical behavior. Thus, it should be treated with more respect and typically reserved for relationships that are intimate in nature. That is why the JCSE argues that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Not because sex is bad, but because sex is so good and so special it carries significant emotional baggage when engaged in lightly.
For good or ill, culture has largely reject this view. In it's place is the view that sex is simply a physical act with very little to no inherent meaning (the only meaning is imputed by the subject if the person wants to). Therefore it's not wrong for a person to have many sexual encounters and treat the subject casually and sometimes flippantly.
Now, I think this view is inconsistent for a few reasons.
-
We argue that sex is just a physical act yet treat rape and sexual assault with greater severity than other kinds of physical violence. Don't read me wrong, I'm not condoning rape or sexual assault here, but I think it's odd that our reactions to such behavior seem to not match our sexual ethic. If it is the case that sex is simply a physical act, then rape should be viewed on the same level as any other physical assault like punching someone in the face. Again, physical assault is wrong but we treat rape and sexual assault as a higher crime. This strikes me as a response consistent with the JCSE rather than our current view.
-
Any sexual act regardless of it's nature is completely fair game as long as there is consent. Because sex is just physical, it follows that any sexual act is morally permissible. Our only caveat is the idea of consent. If someone does not consent, then they are doing something morally wrong. This is all fine and dandy until you consider that different countries have far different standards of consent. The U.S. declares a person can't consent to sex unless they are 18 (unless it's with someone else under 18 then they can). Other countries set their age of consent as low as 13. This
Today there was a post on /r/AskReddit where people were commenting on what book they think everyone should read at least once.
Of course someone eventually commented on the Bible. I'm pretty sure it was a passive aggressive Christian because the comment was followed by an attempt at a secular-sounding justification for the recommendation. Typically I find that liberal Christians have the same basic belief structure as conservative Christians, but they lack the same convictions. They respond with passive aggressive reasons why their religion is important to society even if they can't prove it's true.
This particular comment basically said that people in the western world could gain a greater appreciation of the Bible as literature and philosophy once they realize that it inspired our modern ethics and morals.
This isn't the first time I have seen this argument for the Bible as a source of the principles for modern society. I tend to believe the best way to address the arguments of theists is by making an analogy. That takes it out of the realm of religion where they have their feet firmly planted in the ground, and into a different subject matter where they're more likely to be unbiased. Once they realize the comparison they can then apply the same logic to the subject of religion.
Here is the analogy I've used in the past as a rebuttal to this claim...
Imagine someone told you... "If it wasn't for IBM we wouldn't have computers which are a very important factor to our modern way of life"... Would that make sense to you?
It might at first, but if you think about it long enough you realize how incorrect that assertion is. First of all, IBM isn't the inventor or manufacturer of the original computer.
Second, it was Macintosh which paid homage to the original creator of the computer with their icon of an apple missing a single bite. Macintosh might have come after IBM and took what IBM had done to the next level, but it knew where the original credit for the technology should go.
Finally, even before Turing the concept of a computer existed, it simply wasn't electronic in nature. Computation devices date back thousands of years, and while they are crude devices, it does clearly show that the concept existed in a premature state long before the modern devices we are used to.
Apply this to the Christian claim that western principles came from the Bible...
Western society values concepts which were made popular by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Hist
... keep reading on reddit ➡Sometimes when discussions of ethics occur here, I see responses explaining why Zen doesn't need to establish any sort of discipline against, or even mere judgment of, moral transgressions. For example:
> Raping, pillaging, and plundering aren't something you do ordinarily.
The thing is, it may not be "ordinary" to us, only because we live in societies founded upon thousands of years of strict Judeo-Christian morals.
It was certainly "ordinary" and even sometimes expected of members of societies which preceded these solid ethical foundations, including some of the most evolved and recent among them like ancient Greeks and Romans.
You can't claim that Zen doesn't have to deal with "unordinary" acts, when the only reason these are currently "unordinary" is because Judeo-Christian societies declared them to be moral transgressions and fought them tooth and nail for thousands of years.
That's like a belligerent dictator extolling himself as the paragon of non-violence, because he personally never physically hurt a single soul, all the while his army (or an even more faithful analogy - another nation's army) is killing thousands to uphold his rule.
In fact, I'd be curious to hear from anyone familiar with the histories of countries where Zen flourished, whether acts like extra-judicial killing were considered "ordinary" there. Even with my minimal knowledge of historical China and Japan, I would bet they were. At least, they were things that would happen in the course of ordinary life. Worse, they were sometimes committed by people who professed following of some form of Zen, at least in their own eyes, such as the Samurai.
Either way, you can certainly make an argument that Zen is not concerned with the establishment of basic moral principles, any more than Buddhism is concerned with the study of deep oceanic biology. But you can't support an argument that such basic moral principles aren't necessary for a well-functioning, large scale human society. The only reason you even imagine them to be redundant is because they are already well established and deeply ingrained in your modern society, which upholds them constantly by large and expensive police forces and armies.
Hello I’m just a dood who thinks about religions sometimes. Plz lmk your thoughts.
One of the things that I find interesting about the Scriptures that influenced Christianity and Judaism is the idea that sin comes from knowing about a sin rather than actually performing sin (Ex: The tree of KnOwLeDgE of good and evil, Jesus saying that those who sin willfully are worse than drunks/heathens etc... who don’t know better).
The born again Christian theology especially tells followers to have a very keen awareness of the sinful things around them but this seems directly contradictory to the gospels of Jesus which say not to waste mental energy on sins so much.
For example John 3:16 which is one of the most highly regarded bible verses by born again Christians says that you must follow Jesus’s teachings (i.e. don’t sin by focusing your mental energy on sin) and therefore being a part of that religion would be evil and sinful.
I don't think I've ever seen a Jew use the term. I see it most in the form of "Judeo-christian values", and It feels like a term that only Christians use to try and justify their bigotry. Almost like when they say "Judeo-Christian values", they really mean "Christian values". So many of the "Judeo-Christian" values (like queerphobia and islamaphobia) aren't even things that most Jews believe in.
In a recent stream, Dr. K commented that the very idea of religion is a Judeo-Christian way of understanding things. I think there is a lot of validity to what he's saying, but I'd like to add some perspective as a Jew.
First, I think it's important to be aware that most Jews really dislike the term "Judeo-Christian." There are some cases where it can be an appropriate and accurate term, because there are some features shared by Judaism and Christianity that are not shared by Islam. However, almost always when people use this term, they're either a) going by their knowledge of Christianity and assuming it also applies to Judaism when it doesn't, or b) talking about something that actually applies to all Abrahamic religions, but leaving out Islam because of a Western lens. The term Judeo-Christian isn't inherently offensive or anything, but I think a lot of non-Jews are not aware that Jews typically bristle when hearing that term.
As for the Judeo-Christian concept of religion, I do think Dr. K is correct that Judaism and Christianity (and also Islam) share more of the religion concept than the karmic religions do. However, some of the points he makes are incorrect or vastly oversimplified from a Jewish lens. Dr. K points out that eastern religions are different because it's possible to be an atheist Hindu. But I know many atheist Jews, some spiritual and some completely secular, who nevertheless feel very passionate about being Jewish.
Dr. K calls Hinduism more scientific than the Western religions, and I would also push back on that. The Talmud discusses astronomy, botany, medicine, and other scientific ideas alongside legal and spiritual concepts. Maimonides--the most important medieval Jewish thinker, who had an enormous impact on the modern religion--was also a highly respected astronomer and physician, and his philosophical-religious writings are interspersed with scientific arguments.
The idea that Judaism is about surrendering to God and recognizing your own powerlessness is also not something I completely identify with as a Jew. I consider Judaism, like many religions, to contain multiple ways of understanding the world. Often these can be paradoxical, but when viewed together they can help me attain greater spiritual truth. So sometimes I do think in terms of surrendering to God and recognizing my own powerlessness, but other times I identify with the term "Israel," which refers to a Biblical story of Jacob struggling against a divine being an
... keep reading on reddit ➡In the story of Job, the devil offers God a bet -- that God's most faithful follower, Job, would not curse him no matter what he did to him. God accepts this bet and gives the devil his explicit blessing to murder innocent children, servants, and livestock (among other things) to test Job's faith. When Job questions God's motive for ruining his life, and ending the lives of many close to him, he is merely scolded. Had God been honest and forthright, he would have told Job that his children were murdered simply to test his faith, and that this test was necessary only to win a bet with the devil. Furthermore, at the end of the story God tells Job's friends that were it not for Job's unflinching devotion to his tormentor he would have "destroyed" them.
I posit that:
- "Testing" peoples' devotion to oneself is, itself, an abusive and manipulative behavior
- Threatening to "destroy" people for questioning one's motives (for committing heinous acts, no less) is abusive and manipulative
- Murdering innocent people is immoral. Especially when done to achieve trivial ends.
Put simply, a manipulative, abusive, and murderous god is not a good god.
Potential counter-arguments:
- All that God did (or that the devil did on his behalf) was perfectly justified in this instance because the strengthening of Job and Job's friends' faiths is a greater good than would have been possible without murder, etc.
God's stated goal in this instance was not to strengthen anyone's faith, but to win a bet with the devil. All that transpired in the story was to serve that goal. Furthermore, God used manipulative and abusive tactics to achieve this result, and greater devotion to an immoral god surely cannot be a greater good than not murdering innocent people
- The devil was going to torment Job, anyway, and God merely did not intervene (invoking the "problem of evil")
The text does not support this assertion. Job 1:6-1:12 and 2:1-2:7 are fairly clear that the devil proposes a bet and God accepts:
>“'Does Job worship the Lord for no reason? 10 Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his cattle have increased in the land. † 11 But stretch out Your hand and touch all he has, and see if he will bless You to Your face.' 12 Then the Lord said to the devil, 'Behold, whatever he has I give into your hand; but do not touch him.'"
and
>"Then the **Lord said to the de
... keep reading on reddit ➡I hear conservatives say this all this time and I just want to know the best way to object to this argument
Link to this letter:
https://letter-to-christian-scholars.github.io/Letter-to-Christian-Scholars/
I have built a letter with all of my questions concerning 'God.' I placed it in github because I do not want to own this, I do not need the financial support but I feel that this letter needs to exist. As a community, we can augment this as more information is found. Here is how to add content https://github.com/Letter-to-Christian-Scholars/Letter-to-Christian-Scholars/issues
I would love any feedback
Background to this letter:
I am in a mixed marriage. I am a post mormon atheist with a deep pioneer heritage. My reason for leaving was research.
My wife constantly struggles that I left without talking to any religious 'scholar' before I left. For a time she was demanding that I talk to my general authority uncle or my Ph.D brothers.
Even if I did talk to them, I did not know where to even start the conversation. I had so many issues. So I started writing them down. As I was writing them I realized this was very similar to the CES Letter and to my knowledge there is nothing like a CES Letter for atheism. We need to have one
I purposely wrote this letter in github which allows anyone to improve the letter. I don't own it. The admins to the letter own it. I would love to see more arguments added by the many great minds out there.
I don't want to own this. I have a great job, this letter will not financially benefit me. I just want it to be built. Github allows that exact type of ownership, where we all can own it together.
Hey all, r/satanism suggested I ask this here.
I recently learned TST considers itself part of the tradition of Romantic Satanism, as championed by folks such as Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, and William Blake. I would say a key aspect of Romantic Satanism is the association of Yahweh (or Zeus, or Osiris, etc) with the ruling government, itself seen as tyrannical, with Satan/Lucifer representing rebellion against said tyrany. This is clearly illustrated in works like "Cain: A Mystery", "Prometheus Unbound", and "Marriage of Heaven and Hell". So my questions:
-
Does TST equate the monotheistic God(s) with modern governments as a symbol of tyranny?
-
Is doing so a necessary trait of Romantic Satanism in the first place?
Even if ancient aliens theory is true, it has nothing to do with some distorted judeo-christian myths. The earliest chapters in the Book of Enoch were estimated to be written 300-200 BC, which is late, much late, from as some here are saying, oldest text found.
In the beginning of this very book Enoch tells us that Enoch is "a just man, whose eyes were opened by God so that he saw a vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the sons of God showed to me, and from them I heard everything, and I knew what I saw...". Doesn’t it remind you of anything? Yeah, hello there mr John Smith, how’s missis Mormon doing?
Not sure why anyone even considers these inaccurate paleo-Judaic Ron Hubbard like folk fantasy broth to be a remotely accurate source of historiography, considering that human species existed for at least 100k years. Like trying to make sense out of gibberish stories told by an octogenarian with Alzheimer’s that he miss-heard from someone else earlier this morning at the asylum's cafeteria.
Not to mention that the way Abrahamic religions are boiling our ever changing and ambiguous reality down to good/bad, hell/heaven, and being judged in the end, completely obliterates those last drops of legitimacy that it might have had. It’s really creepy how it dumbs down everything to plain dualities and certain rudimentary human morals, especially in comparison to the more sophisticated theistic and non-theistic philosophies and spiritual practices of that time.
Maybe these made up texts served as a bonding element for those old Judaic kingdoms that were struggling with their complex of inferiority in relation to Egyptians, and then appealed to the average leprous Joe of antiquity, but if abrahamic texts are worth anything in our fairly advanced present days, it’s definitely about the historical and spiritual disinformation perspective at best.
If there was any legit written text about aliens interfering at some stage of our development, it definitely decomposed and disappeared naturally throughout the period of tens of thousands of years. The rest is just someone’s unverifiable narrative.
I remember thinking about this issue before, I thought that it was unfair that Jews and Christians don’t get to have a part in Mecca since it was built by Abraham who they both believe in, then later I was surprised to find that it doesn’t even exist to them.
I also found Dan Gibson’s Petra theory (not convinced) but definitely the Mecca thing is a big mystery. Maybe his theory is not the answer but there has to be something going on here. Even if there was some sort of truth about Kaaba the corrupt Saudi Arabia and their Wahabbis will never let it come to light, they make a ton of money off of pilgrims (which is also another f-ed up thing). What do you think of this issue?
Honestly on my part just to share with you guys, A part of me wishes that the real kaaba wasn’t in Saudi. I don’t feel any spiritual longing to that place, I hate them for what they have done to Islam and Muslim women, they won’t even allow me there unless I’m married because that would be my only mehrem, and the country is full of men who have f-ed up views about women, of course besides the fact that they demand a shit ton of money. I just hate it. I don’t mean any racism or hate against Saudi people themselves, i hope you don’t feel offended as i’m just against wahabbis and extremists and hypocrites
Because if your God is such a piece of shit that he accepts a girl as a burnt sacrifice, then you have no moral standing to ban abortion with your evil religion.
Currently going through my doubting phase, but is it wrong for me to want the god of the Bible to not exist? I used to want to belong to him, but knowing all the shit he did like in job and back in the garden of eden, it’s almost impossible for me to want him to be real. I used to admire Jesus and be devoted to him, but reading some of the things he’s said make me think he was way too overboard and overall just a dick with devotion problems like his dad. Reading his words about the end made me have almost borderline panic attacks, realizing I couldn’t love him more than my family and friends.
But then again, I see signs from modern entertainment today that reflect or symbolize satanic values. I don’t fully believe in the Bible but it’s almost like im seeing it being fulfilled. It’s driving me insane and if it’s true that the judeo Christian god is real, I’d rather fucking die than go back to him being a slave. Id rather die or burn in hell with my family than have god rewrite my mind and heart and make me forget about them for eternity.
Anyone else has experienced this same problem before?
My daughter just left her job at CFA after 1 year. She hired on at $8.25, then worked her way through the ranks as an award-winning model employee who trained new hires, and was loved by the entire crew.
She worked in weather from 25° to 100° F. Put up with customers who remarked on her breasts, her hair, tried to force her into conversations that were completely inappropriate, and questioned her sexuality due to hair length.
She was supposed to work 15-20 hours a week, as she is not yet 18, but was regularly scheduled for several more hours, then told she had to find a replacement for the hours over 20 she couldn’t work. All that, and she left having increased her pay by only $1.25.
When she went to give her notice, 30 days ahead of her last day, they asked her why she was leaving. She told them she found a job earning $12 an hour. Keep in mind that CFA is hiring new staff above that rate. She was told to please let the manager check on a raise over the weekend. She came back saying she couldn’t pay her another $2.50 an hour, even though they are paying new staff, and older staff that amount to start.
I’m proud of her! She handled all of this on her own, and politely declined their offer. She is now 18 and working for a great employer in the evenings, allowed to work on homework and interact with wonderful people in a low stress environment.
Chick Fil A wasn’t all bad, but the fact that it is run by, and touted as a Christian organization, and it pays much less than McDonalds, while charging 50% more, is disappointing and hypocritical. Glad she got the experience. Glad she moved on.
