ParsonIsOP wrote:Buddha was supposed to have said that everybody should be able to attain Enlightenment and was also said to have female disciples. It didn't keep sexism out of the religion though.
Couldn't care less. You're not making a point, just spouting irrelevant history.
So basically, you don't know because of "missing context." Great.
Obviously, I do know. I couldn't have explained it if I didn't.
Now explain the bits where people also used it to justify woman's subservience to man. That and a creation story where a woman was at fault for Man's fall. But I'm sure I'm just taking those "out of context." And explain how it's only recently that women priests are becoming more common (and even then, are relatively rare).
Don't need to. It's not Judeo-christian, because modern Christianity and Judaism rejects it.
None of these "true intentions" excuses how the religion *has* behaved because that just goes into the usual accusation of orthodox/conservative believers by more liberal/progressive believers as not be True Scotsman. If you get to use that excuse, so do Muslims.
How does this relate to the correlation of modern Jewish and Christian values?
Am I allowed to vilify you for the actions of your ancestors? Are you German and can I accuse you of the actions of the Third Reich? Spanish, so I can vilify you for the anti-semitism that drove all Jews out? English, so I can vilify you for treatment of the Indians (Hindu)? American, with the horrid theft of land from Natives, and the starvation, rape, and pillage of reservations? Sometimes merely for the hint of gold in the land?
My point is that I am not guilty of the activities of Christians in the past, just like you are not guilty of the actions of your ancestors. Expecting me to apologize for their actions is absurd... and irrelevant. My morality would not permit me to commit the acts they did.
And again, you are bashing Christians for their history, not discussing the term Judeo-christian. Judeo-christian is based on the modern interpretation of Christianity, not ancient.
And I'm pointing out that a term like "Judeo-Buddhism" would be equally forced and artificial as "Judeo-Christian." One has slightly more overlap than the other, but ideas like the "Golden Rule" are hardly uncommon (and even then I don't find the Golden Rule all that impressive as far as moral insight goes).
Again, that does not invalidate that there is overlap. It does not invalidate that the American Constitution draws much of its morality from the Christianity of its authors, and that it was the tolerance of the Protestants that fled persecution in Europe that created the most permissive society in the World.
There's speculation that pigs bear an eerie resemblance to humans in many ways and so it felt uncomfortable like cannibalism.
Oh, no, that one is scientifically proven. The last tests for medical experiments are on pigs, because of our similarities. Any doctor will tell you pigs carry the most parasites that are dangerous to us of any other animal, which is why they are so heavily medicated. Sorry, but the science on that one is 100% solid.
But that's irrelevant because none of those health reasons actually are the stated reasons for not eating pork. Religion provides a supernatural explanation for why you shouldn't eat pork, not medical ones. We know that it's not medical motivations that drive contemporary kosher practice.
Again, totally irrelevant to modern morality. You're bashing religion, not making points against the term Judeo-christian.
I honestly don't care about the theology given about eating pork, it's still a supernatural explanation, not a medical or scientific one.
Actually, I'm demonstrating that you haven't done any study at all on this issue, and are talking out your derriere. Making things up as you go, instead of studying the issue. I know why these decisions were made, and you don't, but you're demonstrating that you will vilify people from a position of ignorance. That's not a positive character trait.
And there's basically my point. If it's "broad spectrum" then you can claim nothing as being particularly unique morality-wise about "Judeochrisanity." You don't get around it by pretending that some "true intent" was perverted.
No, it is all the more important that similar morality be identified. It demonstrates the core values, which would be Judeo-christian when Judaism is included. It is that core that unites Christians of different denominations, and unity is very important to a group.
I will also point out that while "Judeochristianity" has a prohibition against murder, it is sometime very immoral about what constitutes sanctioned killing and not murder. There are lots of objectionable bits about genocide and it God does some killings, nobody can call him out on it on the assumption that he's got some "mysterious plan."
God has never killed anyone. Prove otherwise.
Oh to be fair, there are plenty of modern Christians who don't think those bits ought to be "taken literally" but it does take the idea that they have some unique system of morality and put it through a wood chipper. And I certainly don't think Jews and Christians have that much in common except that which they were going to have in common anyway outside of any religious considerations.
Uhm.. outside of religious considerations? Judeo-christian is an inherently religious term, so why is that relevant?
Anyway, that's my last post on this. Have the last word if you must. It's clear that you're just looking to bash on Christians specifically and religion in general, and you can't tell that 30% of the people walking past you on the street go to Church every Sunday. Those are the Christians with Judeo-christian values, and that's why they're relevant.