September 17, 2019
  • 7:15 pm Raising concerns about Pope Francis is hard, but essential | The John-Henry Westen Show Ep. 1
  • 7:15 pm Pro-223 – Prophecy Update, 25 February 2018 (Termination Point)
  • 7:15 pm Brad Pitt admits he’s ‘drawn to people with no filter’ as he gets real about spirituality – Latest
  • 7:15 pm Superior Horror Movies 2017 – Full Thriller Movies in English HD
  • 7:15 pm Wind vs. Word (Trusting God’s Timing) | Pastor Steven Furtick | Elevation Church
appropriating morality | how ‘the Judeo-Christian tradition’ takes false credit [cc]


How do we formulate our moral values? Do we just copy those around us? Do we judge our actions to be okay if we see other people doing them? Do we continue to behave exactly how we were trained to behave as children? Do we allow our values to be decided for us by an external authority? parents, peer groups, professors politicians, priests, prophets? Do we question the values we encounter and construct our own values based on critical assessments? Many members of religious ideologies give credit to their religion
for their moral values. But some go further and take credit
on behalf of their religion for the moral values of non-members. It’s been claimed time and time again — and it’s still being claimed — that people who live their lives without any belief in gods,
religion or the supernatural have nonetheless had their morals shaped by the dominant religions
of their geographical region. It’s a predictable claim. Many religious individuals regard their religion as the fundamental or even exclusive source of human morality. For them, if non-believers appear
to lead decent, moral lives it must be down to the pervasive influence
of their religion. In the West, it’s claimed that secular morals
have been shaped by something referred to
as ‘the Judeo-Christian tradition’ — a hybrid of Judaism and Christianity. So, should we allow the credit
for our core moral values to be appropriated in this way? When people claim that secular values borrow from the Judeo-Christian tradition what’s striking is their decision
to ignore all history before the emergence of Judaism and Christianity. Modern human beings had been in existence for over 100,000 years by the time Judaism — a much older religion than Christianity — was in its infancy. Are we expected to accept
that until the advent of Judaism human beings had developed no sense of how to treat each other
to co-exist as social creatures? Did the values of these religions
somehow spring ready-made from a moral vacuum with no reference to the values of the local cultures of the time? Of course they didn’t. Both religions borrowed from pre-existing social conventions and principles. It’s understandable that those who argue for the primacy of Judeo-Christian values would want to stop the historical search for moral values at their own religion but there’s no valid justification for doing so. Certain principles of moral conduct tend to emerge naturally in social groups purely because they help to preserve the group — for example, the basic principle ‘don’t kill’. A culture that adopts the principle: ‘kill as many people as you can indiscriminately’ isn’t going to survive long. When a religion comes along and lays down laws reflecting social conventions and principles already in existence across humanity like not stealing and not murdering that religion doesn’t suddenly own the intellectual rights to those principles. Religion is not the innovator here,
just an imitator. Animal studies show that non-human social species demonstrate empathy, compassion and an awareness of fairness which are significant ingredients in morality. Primatologist Frans de Waal and his colleagues found that when given the choice to swap different kinds of token
for different food rewards chimpanzees and capuchins frequently swapped
‘prosocial’ tokens which rewarded both themselves and a partner
of their species rather than ‘selfish’ tokens which rewarded
them alone. Capuchins have been observed to reward partners for cooperation in a task to gain food even when they have the choice to keep all
of it for themselves. They’ve also been observed to protest aggressively when they see a fellow capuchin receiving
a better reward for performing the same task. After fights, chimpanzees display distinctive
reconciliation behaviour stretching out a hand to an enemy,
kissing, embracing and grooming. Basic equitable behaviour demonstrating
a keen sense of fairness has been observed in a range of social species. To suggest religion is the source of this equitable behaviour is plainly absurd. And it’s no less absurd to suggest it’s the source of human equitable behaviour. What exactly is ‘the Judeo-Christian tradition’
supposed to mean? Judaism and Christianity show significant overlap in their construction holding many of the same
ancient texts as sacred. The Jewish Tanakh contains 24 books that appear in the Christian ‘Old Testament’. But even though these two branches of religion share many ancient texts there are significant differences
in their translations interpretations, perspectives
and foundational values. Many Jews and Christians strongly object
to being lumped together. Writing in the 1970s,
Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits commented: ‘As to dialogue in the purely theological sense’ ‘nothing could be more fruitless or pointless.’ ‘Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity’ ‘and Christianity is Christianity because
it rejects Judaism.’ ‘What is usually referred to
as the Judeo-Christian tradition‘ ’exists only in Christian or secularist fantasy.’ The Tanakh contains instructions that are
explicitly rejected by the figure of Jesus, the Christian messiah and Christianity is repeatedly presented as a reformation of older Jewish ideas. For example, in the Jewish Torah the book of Vayikra chapter 24,
verses 19-20 states: ‘And a man who inflicts an injury upon his
fellow man’ ‘just as he did, so shall be done to him’ ‘fracture for fracture, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth.’ The Christian equivalent in the Old testament book of Leviticus reiterates this. This is an explicit instruction to reciprocate injury. And yet in Matthew 5:43, Jesus explicitly
contradicts this law saying ‘You’ve heard that it was said’ ‘ “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.”
But I tell you….’ ‘If anyone slaps you on the right cheek’ ‘turn to them the other cheek.’ This verse from the Christian New Testament contradicts the Jewish Torah
and its own Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus defends and forgives those identified as adulterers and prostitutes and admonishes those who judge them. In the Tanakh and the Old Testament adulterers and prostitutes
are condemned to death by fire. Time after time, fundamentally incompatible
principles are promoted. So from the outset, any attempt to package Judaism and Christianity
as some coalition of faith creates an unworkable hybrid,
full of moral contradictions. But it’s worse than that. As well as basic conflicts of value between Jewish and Christian scripture substantially conflicting values are found in countless areas between the subdenominations
of each religion. Some Christians believe that accepting the
biblical figure of Jesus as their saviour will allow them to enter a post-death paradise called ‘heaven’. Other Christians believe that who will and won’t enter heaven has been decided before birth and that nothing a person does during their life can change that. Some Christians are strongly separatist distancing themselves from
those outside their group who they label with words like ‘worldly’. Other Christians promote inclusivity
and interfaith dialogue. Some Jews insist the Torah
is the word of their deity. Other Jews see the Torah as a collection of
fallible human writings which changes their relationship to its instructions. There are also conflicts about rituals. Some Jews believe women
and men should be able to publicly recite a mourning prayer called
the kaddish. Others believe it should be reserved for men. These individual denominations
promote incompatible principles so to claim they represent a unified moral
tradition is untenable. Even if we ignore the conflicting values of Judaism and Christianity and focus on their common ground, we find problems. When we look at the texts both religions
regard as sacred they contain instructions to put a long list
of people to death. Of course, even the denominations that insist their scripture embodies eternal,
unchanging moral values don’t carry out these instructions which shows a clear disconnect between the moral values in the text and what Jews and Christians actually do. Of course, when a holy book tells us to kill blasphemers, unruly children, non-believers adulterers and same-sex lovers better to be a hypocrite and not carry out these barbaric instructions
than commit these killings just to be morally consistent
with an immoral book. But, isn’t it best,
when your own moral sense tells you an instruction is wrong to reject the authority of the instruction? When a supposedly holy book tells you to carry out executions you know to be immoral isn’t the clearest solution to recognise that the book isn’t holy at all? And that its values have
no place in any civilised morality? There’s a fundamental split
between scriptural values and modern moral values regarding
the importance of deeds. With few notable exceptions — for example, where illness or coercion
is involved — we judge people as accountable for their actions and expect them to accept personal responsibility. Christianity, in contrast,
discards this core value substituting the acceptance of Jesus as the sole consideration. On the surface, the Bible contains
lots of instructions about how to behave, but ultimately deeds don’t count in Christianity. A lifetime of bad deeds is obliterated
by accepting Jesus. A lifetime of good deeds is obliterated
by failure to accept him. Another fundamental split is seen in the contrast between commandment-based
religious moral instruction which provides no rational
other than divine authority and commonly forbids challenge and criticism and secular morality, constructed through a process of independent reasoning involving ongoing critical discussion
and education. These differences aren’t trivial. They have profound consequences for our whole relationship with morality. If we’re asked why a specific behaviour
is morally wrong and all we can say is
‘Because a god says so’ or ‘Because my holy book says so’ or ‘Because that’s what I’ve been
brought up to believe’ we haven’t provided a moral answer at all. We’ve just accepted what we’ve been told
to think by others. If we’re doing as we’re told with no intervening reflection,
copying the crowd or simply acting out of fear of punishment
or hope of reward we’re not exercising
our individual moral agency. Alan claims behaviour X is morally wrong but argues from religious authority or tradition to justify his position. Ben claims behaviour X is morally wrong but justifies his position with valid reasoning. They might share the same view about the behaviour but Ben’s moral outlook owes no debt of recognition to Alan’s religion. The fact that religions promote
values doesn’t mean those values are supported by valid reasoning. In fact it’s through the careful application of valid reasoning that we continue to expose many historically celebrated
religious values as immoral. Among a wealth of reprehensible stories in the Jewish and Christian scriptures are its depictions of atrocities towards children. In the Old Testament’s book of Numbers and its equivalent in the Tanakh, Bamidbar we find the prophet Moses giving instructions to kill every male child of the Midianites and preserve any virgin female children
as sexual stock. This from the prophet famed for delivering
the Decalogue — ten purportedly divine commandments governing conduct, thought and worship. Lyrics to the Melodians’ song
‘Rivers of Babylon’ — later popularised by Boney M — were lifted from Psalm 137 of the Bible. The song focuses on the parts of the Psalm that express feelings of victimhood recounting how the Jews
were carried away in captivity by the Babylonians and told to sing songs. ‘Rivers of Babylon’ might not
have been such a hit if it had included verse 9 of the Psalm which delights in a peculiar form of revenge against the Babylonians. It states: ‘Happy is the one who seizes your infants’ ‘and dashes them against the rocks.’ Some apologists have claimed
that the word ’infants’ doesn’t refer to literal infants. It’s just being used like
the phrase ‘children of Israel’ to refer to the people of Babylon. But Isaiah 13:16 echoes the passage in Psalms and clearly refers literally to children. Writing in the 1700s, in his Exposition of
the Entire Bible Baptist John Gill commented that: ‘though it may seem a piece of cruelty’ it was ‘but a just retaliation.’ He claimed it was not ‘desired from
a spirit of revenge’ ‘but for the glory of divine justice’. The glorification of infanticide is not a
value that shapes our morals today. Jewish and Christian bibles contain
a vast range of messages from stories of great compassion and tenderness to salivating accounts
of the most debased brutality. We have the fluff and we have the snuff. But even some of the fluffy stuff isn’t quite so fluffy on closer inspection. As a former Christian, I was taught to see Jesus as the embodiment of love. But the fact is Jesus was no respecter of loving relationships
that didn’t include him jealously declaring: ‘Anyone who loves
their father or mother’ ‘more than me is not worthy of me;’ ‘anyone who loves their son or daughter’ ’more than me is not worthy of me.’ This ‘love on demand’ approach also featured in Jesus’s command to ‘love our enemies’ as well as countless commands to love Yahweh employing inducements and threats
to achieve compliance. The notion of ordering people to love denies the autonomous nature of love. Who today would accept being told
who they should love? Talking of relationships, the term codependency refers to relationships in which one partner depends on the other as an external source of self-worth, approval and identity instead of being able to nurture those qualities
within themselves. Codependency is recognised as a highly dysfunctional relationship model. But it’s the ultimate relationship model in Jewish and Christian scripture where it becomes theodependency. Here, again, instead of being inwardly cultivated self-worth, approval and identity are sought from an external source — this time, a god — leaving many followers vulnerable to all kinds of abuse and manipulation. The doctrine of eternal punishment promoted by Christianity is deeply immoral representing the most extreme possible disproportion between transgression and penalty. By ruling out redemption or rehabilitation, it constitutes nothing more than everlasting
gratuitous sadism. The foundational Christian doctrine
of vicarious redemption proposes that the sacrifice of a supposedly
innocent individual can atone for the sins of others. Secular thinkers have denounced this concept as a striking perversion of moral responsibility. Born in the 1700s, Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers
of the United States, commented: ‘If I owe a person money,
and cannot pay him’ ‘and he threatens to put me in prison‘ ’another person can take the debt upon himself,
and pay it for me.’ ‘But if I have committed a crime’ ‘every circumstance of the case is changed.’ ‘Moral justice cannot take the innocent
for the guilty’ ‘even if the innocent would offer itself.’ ‘To suppose justice to do this’ ‘is to destroy the principle of its existence’ ‘which is the thing itself.’ ‘It is then no longer justice.’ ‘It is indiscriminate revenge.’ In his book, God Created Humanism: The Christian Basis of Secular Values Theo Hobson seeks to give Christianity credit for modern moral thinking. He argues: ‘Secular humanism very gradually emerged
within Christian culture.’ ‘Which means that the modern humanist principles’ ‘of liberty and equality are rooted in Christianity.’ If self-worth very gradually emerges
from within an abusive family is that self-worth rooted in abuse? If science very gradually emerges
within a culture that rejects science for superstition is science rooted in superstition? Sometimes values emerge
as an attempt to shake humans free of the surrounding culture’s
retrograde influence. And they emerge despite the best efforts of the surrounding culture
to stifle and suppress them. Hobson states,
‘…. in the mid twentieth century’ ‘the ideal of universal human rights
was launched‘ ’by mostly Christian thinkers and statesmen.’ A chain of coffee-shops could be launched
by mostly Christian thinkers. Doesn’t mean the coffee has Christian roots. Christians do all kinds of things
— good, bad and indifferent — that have nothing to do with their religion. It’s not enough to say that something was
done by Christians. In order to give Christianity the credit you have to demonstrate a sound ideological
pathway to Christianity itself. And when we look for that pathway we find the problem mentioned before: the pathway repeatedly splits
into conflicting directions. This helps to explain why, historically we’ve often seen Christians
on both sides of a dispute. In the mid-nineteenth century on the issue of slavery in the United States there were Christian abolitionists
and Christian advocates A religion proclaimed as the source
of universal human rights should unambiguously condemn
the owning of people as property. But it doesn’t. Instead, Christian — and Jewish — scripture explicitly endorses it and even proposes
a set of laws to regulate it. A religion that stands for everything
stands for nothing. Hobson writes: ‘Christianity gave rise to
a moral universalism’ ‘that is in a sense more advanced than it’ ‘for secular moral universalism is capable
of being more universalist’ ‘in that it overlooks religious difference
in asserting fundamental human unity.’ Hobson tries to give the credit for the emergence of secular morality to Christianity while admitting that secular morality in overlooking religious differences demonstrates a more advanced moral perspective
than Christianity whose doctrines repeatedly exclude and condemn those who sincerely see no valid reason or evidence for supernatural belief. Credit for secular moral advances goes to
secular thinkers not to Christianity. The word ‘secular’ is often mistakenly
defined as atheistic. But secular thinkers can be religious or non-religious. Secular thinking just means the person isn’t bringing religious faith into the matter. Which is why, in those cases credit goes to the thinker
and not to any faith. He goes on to say, ‘Christianity should
affirm secular humanism’ ‘as a public ideology but also say that
it is inadequate’ ‘it is limited to the practical public sphere,
the surface of life’ ‘it has no strong account
of life’s meaning and purpose’ ‘but gravitates to an evasive shrug.’ Secular humanism doesn’t have to account for life’s ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’. Many secular thinkers
don’t agree that life has any intrinsic meaning or purpose so not providing an account
of these doesn’t represent a deficiency or an evasion, but a disagreement. If Hobson wishes to make the claim that life has meaning or purpose it’s his burden to provide
valid support for his claim. If he can’t shoulder that burden then it’s his position
that amounts to an evasive shrug. Hobson states, ‘Humanitarian ideals
are not natural’ ‘nor are they rationally deducible’ ‘they are complex cultural traditions,
brewed over centuries.’ ‘And the main ingredient in this brewing
was the story of God’ ‘taking the side, even taking the form,
of the powerless victim….’ Humanitarianism is about the promotion
of human welfare and humanitarian ideals can be a mix
of tutored and natural. As previously noted, we can see
the basic elements of empathy and equity
in the prosocial behaviour of animals and we have no reason to believe
that humans alone require these same elements to be inserted magically into them by supernatural means. Of course ideals do sometimes
require some teaching often to overcome cultural traditions
brewed over centuries — traditions that’ve condemned,
subjugated and executed unfathomable numbers of people
based on ignorance, superstition and the bogus moral pronouncements
of religious scripture like the Jewish and Christian bibles,
which set death penalties for a huge range of harmless activities including picking up sticks
on the wrong day of the week. Part of the reason many harmless activities were able to be condemned was because of the dubious religious term ‘sin’ which has no accurate secular equivalent. With sin, we see the invention
of a nebulous category that can encompass any behaviour or thought on the grounds that it represents a transgression against some god or gods without having to offer any evidence of harm. It’s when we apply rational deduction — rather than dogmatic
moral pronouncements — that we’re able to bypass
all this superstitious savagery and see these harmless activities
for what they are. As a former Christian, for years,
I mistook Jesus for a victim. I became lost in the drama and emotion
of the crucifixion story and overwhelmed by the painful sense of guilt that was handed to me by my indoctrinators who told me Jesus was crucified for me. When I later tunnelled my way out of my indoctrination I realised the character of Jesus
wasn’t a victim at all. If Jesus was Yahweh in human form then Yahweh freely chose to undergo crucifixion according to his own premeditated plan. He had the power to do whatever he wanted. There was no coercion or necessity. In contrast, genuine victims
don’t have choice or power over their situations. Being an entirely voluntary exercise the crucifixion story amounts to nothing more than a divine flirtation with sadomasochism. To characterise Jesus as a victim
is a gross insult to genuine victims. The claim that people who live their lives without any belief in gods,
religion or the supernatural have had their morals shaped
by ‘Judeo-Christian’ traditions or values can be dismantled on many grounds. The very notion of Judeo-Christian
traditions and values is beset with problems. Not only do many Jews and Christians strongly reject the awkward merging
of their ideologies their values and the values
of the individual denominations of their religions show significant conflict
and incompatibility. Individual cases of resemblance
to secular values don’t imply that secular values have borrowed
from religion ones. Secular values can be derived independently without reference to any religious scripture. Animal studies demonstrating basic empathy fairness, compassion and reconciliation also negate the idea that religions
are the source of our values as does the existence
of similar equitable principles in independent human cultures around the globe. Secular moral values can develop
through critical discussion allowing course correction
when mistakes are discovered. Moral judgement relies on an accurate assessment
of relevant information. So the very principle of adapting in the light
of new information rather than sticking dogmatically
to misguided ideas is an important value in itself. In contrast, religious values presented as eternal, unchanging, perfect….
can admit no mistakes forcing adherents to invent contorted apologetics to try and excuse the inexcusable. Historically, Judaism and Christianity
have both promoted and implemented scriptural values most of
us find abhorrent today. Secular thinking has provided moral insights and exposed the harm in the values
of those religions prompting followers to reevaluate
their moral stances on a range of issues and opening the way for all of us to advance beyond exclusive
religious moral systems and continue to develop inclusive human values that are relevant and coherent. Secular thinkers have not borrowed moral capital from the incoherent hybrid that is Judeo-Christianity. We don’t owe Judeo-Christianity a moral debt and we shouldn’t put up with any attempts
on its behalf at appropriating morality.

Otis Rodgers

RELATED ARTICLES

100 COMMENTS

  1. dilbertgeg Posted on June 7, 2019 at 12:21 am

    Born to Jewish parents, secular, skeptics, but not particularly hostile to traditions .. my cousins got more religious training and the coming of age party .. but I just learned that the Tanakh (sic?) or Torah has completely different books from the Christian "Old Testament" .. which I had considered to be Jewish, not Christian, books.

    So detached am I from my greater family history & religious culture, even from knowing about what is there.

    Reply
  2. yoooyoyooo Posted on June 7, 2019 at 4:14 pm

    If Christians drop their beliefs then they will be mere mortals like the rest of us. They won't be able to hold the conciet that they are more. It is painfully obvious to the outsider. Same goes for all godly religions.

    Reply
  3. Katalyzt Posted on June 7, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    Perfectly said/done TheraminTrees ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ★★★★★

    Katalyzt

    Reply
  4. Profound Observer Posted on June 8, 2019 at 9:39 am

    jesus loved hookers…. sounds like my kind of guy

    Reply
  5. That guy Posted on June 11, 2019 at 6:59 pm

    i think it is wrong to say that western civilication is not greatly influenced by christianity, and therefor our morality, but it has also been influenced by non-christian belifes (one example is greek filosofi)

    Reply
  6. The King in Yellow Posted on June 14, 2019 at 6:42 am

    Oof can't wait to be immortal with medical technology.

    Reply
  7. Feiner Fug Posted on June 14, 2019 at 12:37 pm

    Had to go on a Beethoven listening spree after that.

    Reply
  8. chris s Posted on June 15, 2019 at 2:45 am

    I was crazy about this video but the speaker does make a really compelling point about being a victum when he talks about the crusidiction

    Reply
  9. Sebastien Sade Posted on June 19, 2019 at 10:53 pm

    My religious brother use to argue that Ancient Rome and Egypt fell (he termed it 'destroyed,') because they were intrinsically immoral… until I pointed out that Rome lasted 1200 years, Egypt 2000 years, and Ancient Israel…. 418 years.

    Reply
  10. James Edward S. Posted on June 20, 2019 at 8:59 pm

    Yes, it's wrong for any one person or group of persons to take credit for inventing morality because moral principles are embedded in the fabric of the universe that God has created, like the principles of logic and the principles of math and the principles of the laws of physics.

    The difference with the moral law is the ability and the motivation to break them. If you try to break the laws of physics by jumping off a high cliff intending to glide gently to the ground below, the retribution of the universe against you is swift. If you break the moral law by lying and stealing and murdering, the consequences are often delayed, especially in a morally degenerate society such as the West is today. But what goes around comes around, eventually. As you sow, that shall you also reap, though the harvest seem to be delayed.

    Reply
  11. chales dor Posted on June 21, 2019 at 8:00 pm

    The Christian God Jesus is Satan the devil and he is not coming back… Christians worship Satan with a human sacrifice of Jesus to Satan… you've been deceived… repent accept Jahovah an do good works.

    Reply
  12. CJFCarlsson Ensign Posted on July 4, 2019 at 12:43 pm

    Actually looking to atheism for morality is a bit like going to your local burglar for your tv.

    Reply
  13. IAN HEINE Posted on July 8, 2019 at 8:56 pm

    "Christianity teaches good moralities!"

    Confucius would like to know your Location

    Reply
  14. AnchorTheSun 3 Posted on July 9, 2019 at 7:49 pm

    You can’t really claim animals have “morals” when these are the same animals rape, kill for fun , kill babies to mate with their mothers , etc . Science doesn’t belong in philosophy of ethics , stop trying to apply it

    Reply
  15. MegaChickenfish Posted on July 10, 2019 at 7:13 pm

    People say that, and maybe they have a bit of a point that my individual morality has been shaped by what people now call religion. But it sure as fucking hell wasn't shaped by the bible. It's the most repulsive book I've ever read, and the irony of that shellshock hitting me from reading a book I was told for 18 years was literally perfect was the catalyst.

    How was it everyone in my life had told me I got all my moral values from this book, yet when I read it myself, my moral values screamed loud and clear against nearly all of its contents? I'm still finding new things to be disgusted of every time I open it. Just today finding the Leviticus verse about grabbing doves by the wings and ripping them in half as part of the sacrifice ceremony. _What the Mortal Kombat gorn-loving f***?!

    Reply
  16. MegaChickenfish Posted on July 10, 2019 at 7:29 pm

    17:50 Well my critical thinking skills emerged from an upbringing of absolutely none of them, reading the bible for myself, realizing I had been lied to, and doubling down on skepticism to prevent it happening again. In that way…kind of yes? There's still obviously better ways to go about it.

    Reply
  17. MegaChickenfish Posted on July 10, 2019 at 7:33 pm

    22:30 To say nothing of how the author says "judeo-christian tradition" yet all jews reject the very story he's referencing to make that point.

    Reply
  18. Marko Nekilik Posted on July 21, 2019 at 6:31 pm

    "Many jews an christians reject the awkward merging…" Shows a cross penetrating a David's star😂😂😂

    Reply
  19. mark y Posted on July 22, 2019 at 4:36 am

    morality is an arbitrary evaluation (/judgement) of human behavior. morality is false, a myth. it usually has served (and serves) as a form of psychological/cultural influence or manipulation, ultimately for socioeconomic reasons, for socioeconomic control/advantage.

    Reply
  20. Angus Adolphus Posted on July 22, 2019 at 10:46 pm

    It's judeo-christian-islamic. Don't forget islamic..

    Reply
  21. Cornelius Corcoran Posted on July 23, 2019 at 9:34 pm

    The term 'Judeo-Christian is meaningless nonsense and is frequently used in a bigoted way to basically write Muslims out of any part in contributing to civilisation and to also distinguish their 'other' culture, from 'ours'. Christianity is a mixture of Greek and Hebrew mythologies, Christianity is Hellenised Judaism , so you're saying 'Judeo – Hellenised Judaism.' What values would be different, between a 'Judeo – Christian' and a 'Christian'? By the way, I really enjoyed your video, sorry for the side gripe. i do not think you have any malign intent, by your use of that term, it's just a peeve.

    Reply
  22. Jasmin Vavrecka Posted on July 24, 2019 at 9:52 am

    Your videos are exelen🙌.I always learn loads for them👍 Is there any possebility to learn from you how to make them?

    Reply
  23. Tim Hallas Posted on July 28, 2019 at 12:12 am

    3,000 year old moral values are no more acceptable today than 3,000 year old knowledge of the universe. If knowledge grows with time, so does morality. The values expressed in the US constitution do not match those of the 2,000 year old Christian religion, or it's 3,000 year old predecessor. The Christian Bible has no amendments to abolish slavery, or give rights to women, or to protect children from abusive parents.. Even rape and murder were permitted under the Judaeo/Christian God as long as he favored you over another….and he often did.. How convenient it must be for YOUR God to order the slaughter of YOUR enemies. Accountability is the only thing this God abolished.

    Reply
  24. Tim Hallas Posted on July 28, 2019 at 12:30 am

    To the Christian, the character named Jesus Christ represents the path to self love. The relationship with Jesus, is the relationship with the self. In a sense, it allows the Christian to assume himself to be made clean, simply by absolving himself of all sin. This arrogance is born of selfishness, that is programmed into children by priests and parents. They are told that they are born as sinners, but hold the power to become sin free. They are convinced of their special status AS A CHRISTIAN over all others.. Herein lies the corruption of the mind, and the beginning of a lifetime of selfish pride.

    Reply
  25. Hans-Joachim Bierwirth Posted on July 28, 2019 at 11:54 am

    There is no judeao-christian tradition. Such a thing doesn't exist and never did.

    Reply
  26. Karol Kupec Posted on July 28, 2019 at 4:36 pm

    Suprime good is love, anything going against this principal is immoral. You are temporal and infinite at the same time , part of the earth and part eternal spirit of God. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸💘💘💘💘you.

    Reply
  27. NoLongerHuman13 Posted on July 29, 2019 at 4:00 am

    B. I. B. L. E. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth – Method Man

    Reply
  28. Amy Xoxo Posted on July 29, 2019 at 4:24 am

    Do not kill…but here are a few exceptions…

    Reply
  29. Leisa Irwin Posted on July 29, 2019 at 4:41 pm

    I'm sad today, every venue has been inundated with religious messages. This week I saw young black boys converted to judaism, a resolution in the US favoring Israel, and monster on sunday girl having a breakdown because of family religious pressures. Switzerland was going to arrest an Israeli war criminal, but he caught wind of it…Trump is a bought and paid for traitor to my nation's secular founding!! One of the young boys I saw was bitching about Digital Hamurabi's Megan saying Old Testament instead of Tanakh. Aaaarrrrgggghhh!

    Reply
  30. Mens et Ens Posted on July 29, 2019 at 10:36 pm

    They don't 'take false credit.' Apparently you've not read Thomas Aquinas or even the beginning of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.

    Reply
  31. humbuckerpickups Posted on August 3, 2019 at 12:24 am

    Isn't it funny how Christians can recognize the brutality and primitive thinking of the Q'ran but fail to recognize it in their own Bible? People from each religion white wash and try to explain away anything a non believer finds offensive.

    Reply
  32. humbuckerpickups Posted on August 3, 2019 at 12:37 am

    Attributing one's own sense of morality to a supernatural being or a religion is a disingenuous display of humility (conscious or not) and a form of sycophantic behavior towards an imaginary friend.

    Reply
  33. AlphaK91 Posted on August 4, 2019 at 7:03 am

    I LOVE THIS CHANNEL

    Reply
  34. MadVulcan Posted on August 4, 2019 at 11:16 am

    So I'm going to be the one to challenge you against your argument as who to say your not trying to appropriate appropriating morality?
    4:12 Really? Your comparing human morality to animal morality and I'm watching this right after your false equivalence video. wow.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLEs8OgRmh0

    Reply
  35. Nicholas Whitmire Posted on August 5, 2019 at 6:48 am

    That opening quote ignored the definition of God. The Christian God is the nature of "natural result". There is no mutual exclusivity there. The Christian definition of free-thought is to adhere to Truth, to trust Truth, to put faith in Truth, and so to faithfully serve Truth. Again there is no mutual exclusivity in that.

    Jesus said "He who speaks against the Son shall be forgiven, but he who speaks against the Spirit Of Truth, it will not be forgiven him."

    We therefor see that adherence to Truth is preeminent to adhering to Jesus. This is also why indoctrinated "christianity" is not Christianity.

    Reply
  36. MadVulcan Posted on August 6, 2019 at 5:31 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLEs8OgRmh0

    Reply
  37. David Renwick Posted on August 6, 2019 at 8:34 am

    Intro music B's 7th, 2nd M among my favs. Ta.

    Reply
  38. THGraham Posted on August 6, 2019 at 9:03 am

    Curious, if people had been literate in the first century would Christianity had taken hold? It appears that secular thinking started appearing as more and more people became literate in the west. The church had to double down and actually burned the first person to translate the Bible. And for a long time the Bible was poetic in the King James Version, which led to confusion and then the appearance of other denominations. It appears that the literate were telling the illiterate what was in the Bible and how to attain heaven. This was really convenient for the literate.

    So today people are trying to go to heaven that it is either empty or it is full of generations of horrible people who killed, tortured and did what they were told in the name of this god, no thought, just blind obedience to a literate few who conveniently controlled most of the wealth and still do today.

    It’s surprising with literacy rates high that people are still theists, indoctrination/tribalism is very powerful indeed.

    Reply
  39. John Smyrk Posted on August 7, 2019 at 10:12 pm

    This is the most useful discussion of morality to which I have been exposed. Logical, thoughtful and superbly delivered.

    Reply
  40. Tedquestionmark Posted on August 8, 2019 at 2:11 pm

    Logic with out research. This argument is logically found but takes common misunderstandings as facts. I appreciate the logical thinking but simply understanding what the term Judeo-christian means would have gone a long way and helped stopped debates about why Islam is superior to Judeo-christian values…because Islam is part of that definition.

    Reply
  41. Karen M Posted on August 8, 2019 at 4:05 pm

    I have always seen the crucifixion story as complete bullshit. Christians are totally taken in by this and actually see it as a real sacrifice.

    How is a temporary sacrifice valid? Jesus supposedly knew that in 3 days he would come back and become king of the world. Many parents would willingly sacrifice themselves for their children knowing it is permanent.

    Calling the crucifixion a sacrifice is like giving up your possessions when you know you will receive a billion dollars in 3 days.

    I have seen christians literally brought to tears by what they see as this noble and selfless act done just to save them. I cannot understand why they are so impressed and it drives me nuts.

    Reply
  42. Morahman7vnNo2 Posted on August 13, 2019 at 2:29 am

    Common Sense…

    Reply
  43. Leon Marvellous Posted on August 13, 2019 at 8:04 am

    Another excellent expose', thank you.

    Reply
  44. Katherine G Posted on August 14, 2019 at 12:44 am

    Very powerful. I've said that before about your work. Thank you.

    Reply
  45. MidoriMushrooms Posted on August 14, 2019 at 1:11 am

    21:29 And that's the fundamental reason people of faith remain in a faith that they might disagree with on many points; it gives them something atheist philosophy is neither equipped to or interested in providing. You might not need that, but they do.

    Reply
  46. alic seprin Posted on August 15, 2019 at 6:33 am

    can you justify calling a thought/desire [without action towards said thought]
    being immoral?

    Reply
  47. Slowpoke Posted on August 15, 2019 at 7:40 am

    If God (YHWH) were truly all powerful, they'd be capable of judging people as they were, without having to conform to seemingly arbitrary criterion laid out by millenia old texts.

    Reply
  48. JD Raeb Posted on August 15, 2019 at 2:17 pm

    If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of Divine reward then brother,that person is a piece of shit and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible Rust Chole

    Reply
  49. MrEvan1932 Posted on August 16, 2019 at 6:47 pm

    Dennis Prager needs to watch this

    Reply
  50. Nobillis McCaw Posted on August 19, 2019 at 11:36 am

    Thank you for this. It is good to know the skeletons in the closet of my beliefs.

    Reply
  51. Paula Riveraa Posted on August 20, 2019 at 8:05 am

    Antichrist video, we no longer live by the law of moses.

    Reply
  52. Masha Spikego Posted on August 20, 2019 at 9:36 am

    The profound message of your information is set off perfectly by the gentle soothing timbre of your voice. Thanks from Down Under.

    Reply
  53. Peter Posted on August 20, 2019 at 10:24 am

    Why do we credit discoveries to certain people? Because they found it and articulated it and created base categorial systems involving it for others to use. Why is is ridiculous to credit the Bible as being the announcer (not creator) of foundational western culture? Not only did they they just announce existing moral law but also interjected and played with ideas given. Just like any good author they have characters and objects representing various ideas and interactions which ends up saying something particular

    Reply
  54. mark aaron Posted on August 20, 2019 at 3:11 pm

    And then there's the fact that other societies that never were and still aren't Jewish or Christian nevertheless share the vast majority of ideas about what's right or wrong. Among these societies there are none where murder's fine, theft's fine, lying's fine, rape's fine, etc. They even share the bulk of our taboos regarding sexual conduct.

    Reply
  55. ALBER PAJARES Posted on August 21, 2019 at 8:01 am

    You are not a man till you don’t have earth you know what ¡ mean❓

    Reply
  56. Amateur0Visionary Posted on August 21, 2019 at 5:24 pm

    I think you may be missing a big part of the belief of those who spout the primacy of the Judeo Christian ethic. The argument is not that morality comes from "religion", rather that it comes from God. That's an important distinction.

    Many, if not most of them, believe in a literal, or at least semi-literal, interpretation of Genesis. Though the "laws" of God may not have been codified until Moses, they believe that morality was instilled in us from creation. Thus it predates any man-made religion and can not be superseded.

    I dont subscribe to that. And you make excellent points in your video. But I think your arguments would be seen as irrelevant by many who proclaim the JCE to be the be-all end-all of morality.

    Much love.

    Reply
  57. Kevin McK Posted on August 21, 2019 at 7:27 pm

    It is up to US to provide meaning and purpose to life!

    Reply
  58. Steve Schmunk Posted on August 22, 2019 at 7:14 am

    Innate morality has been systematically suppressed by a profusion of religious organizations thoughout our so called modern rise to civilal life , that I sit here and and listen to a critical thinker what comes to mind always… Darwin et al … the shining lights that push back ignorance in favor of understanding , where we are now is I hope just a phase , a transition that will play out beyond our short lives and move incrementally to ……..

    Reply
  59. Missy V Posted on August 23, 2019 at 12:23 pm

    Matthew 10: 34-38 Huge red flag for me.

    Reply
  60. Missy V Posted on August 23, 2019 at 12:25 pm

    One of the greatest tragedies of humans is when religion highjacked human morality. Paraphrased, A.C. Clarke

    Reply
  61. my lord Posted on August 23, 2019 at 6:38 pm

    Bravo! Well done.

    Reply
  62. Jaret Quiring Posted on August 23, 2019 at 6:50 pm

    Great videos thanks.

    Reply
  63. Kasia R Posted on August 24, 2019 at 8:04 am

    Thank you so much for this desperately needed debunking
    What is the music in the intro please?

    Reply
  64. Veronica Vasquez Posted on August 24, 2019 at 5:19 pm

    Premise is wrong. Morality was never their goal. They stole Kemet scripture for conquest and corrupted the content. They couldn't get through the first lines of the first book, Genesis, without lying. And when they tried to be faithful, there were the translation errors which were huge.

    Reply
  65. differous01 Posted on August 25, 2019 at 10:04 am

    5:56 "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity … The Judeo-Christian tradition exist only in Christian or secularist fantasy." By R. Berkovit's definition the authors of the Old Testament, who never heard of Christianity, were not Jewish; secular Sadducees (who did not believe in an afterlife), and secularists of all time, are swept under the carpet by this sectarian fantasy.

    Reply
  66. paul vorderwinkler Posted on August 27, 2019 at 10:12 pm

    "….conflicts about rituals….individual denominations promote incompatible principles, so to claim that they represent a unified moral tradition is untenable"…….never heard such a load of rubbish. here`s a guy pretending to understand judaism and christianity but showing his ignorance and misunderstanding with every sentence he utters.

    Reply
  67. Zavarakatranemia Posted on August 28, 2019 at 11:16 am

    But there still exist religious fascists, completely unable to show empathy compassion nor fairness, to the point of suspicion. Well, that makes 'em worse than wild animals.

    Reply
  68. Nyarlathotehp Posted on August 28, 2019 at 11:26 pm

    Its it wrong for me to consider islam as a part of judeo-christian systems…? It feels as though they all share similarities with similar contradictions even

    Reply
  69. Satevo Posted on August 29, 2019 at 6:12 am

    9 out 10 conservatives hate this. Evangelical christianity is not a moral religion, it's a death cult. Most American Christians, are actually antichrist's. Just look at evangelicals support for the atrocities at the border. They're fine with letting other people suffer, as long as it's not them.

    Reply
  70. Meep Meep Posted on August 29, 2019 at 8:51 pm

    It's somewhat amusing that something as brutal as the cucifixion is covered in so much detail in primary (elementary) school.

    Reply
  71. Dominick Tidd Posted on August 30, 2019 at 12:45 am

    Tl:Dr

    God exists praise Jesus nigga

    Reply
  72. Rusty Shackleford Posted on August 30, 2019 at 4:32 am

    Walk circumspectly not as fools, redeeming the time because the days are evil. Be skeptical and look at all the angles always question everything you believe because the world is deceptive. That's what the scripture says. But you probably never actually read them. There isn't anything about JudeoChristain ethics in scripture. You have your own religious belief whether you see it or not. This is Total hogwash.

    Reply
  73. 5555 Posted on August 30, 2019 at 9:37 am

    12:12
    Is there a reason Alan is being played by Dr. Rick Dagless, M.D., and Ben is clearly Dr. Lucien Sanchez?

    Reply
  74. Howard Thompson Posted on August 30, 2019 at 6:30 pm

    I have heard countless times that Christian morality abolished slavery. Really? So, at best, that is saying, "We enslaved you and then released you, so we get credit for releasing you. See how awesome we are." But of course Christianity was used to hold up slavery for centuries if not millennia.

    Reply
  75. Sofia Arin Posted on August 30, 2019 at 9:13 pm

    In France we cannot criticize judaism, its illegal…

    Reply
  76. SDnikko Posted on August 31, 2019 at 12:24 am

    So does that passage from Matthew quoting Jesus mean Jesus was the leader of his own cult?

    Reply
  77. William Lillevik Posted on August 31, 2019 at 3:33 pm

    TIL Capuchins are comrades

    Reply
  78. Yoctomotio KL23 Posted on September 1, 2019 at 3:22 pm

    You like Full Metal Alchemist…

    Reply
  79. Q Point Assembly Posted on September 1, 2019 at 4:26 pm

    Using primates as a parallel is ridiculous because their behavior is instinctive and necessary as a means of maintaining a cohesive group. They share because it is not fair, but because it keeps the bond between the two animals intact which is necessary for survival….

    Reply
  80. Salome P Posted on September 1, 2019 at 4:47 pm

    You are kind of wrong. Read the last two pages of Revelations and you will see good deeds does count for not getting tossed into the lake of fire. Christians skip such a judgement because of going by the fruit of the spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. For the is no law against such.

    Reply
  81. Eporedorix Posted on September 1, 2019 at 10:37 pm

    Zoroastrianism is always forgot lol.

    Reply
  82. Chris Ihler Posted on September 2, 2019 at 12:44 am

    As a seculure thinking it seems to me that your arguments are well articulated and eeasoned but not nessasarly as well founded as you claim. I would like to see your arguments addressed by some reasonable Christian argumentation. That would be great to see 2 well reasoning perspectives go back and forth into deeper argumentation.

    Reply
  83. Kroban3 Posted on September 2, 2019 at 4:55 am

    I will just say that the hexagram is not the star of David, it is the star of Remphan. It is luciferian the protestations of zionists notwithstanding.

    Reply
  84. James T. Picard Posted on September 2, 2019 at 11:50 am

    Around 20:50 you say that credit for secular thinking goes to the thinker and not to the religion. How would you respond to someone that said that different religions have varying degrees of leniency towards this type of thinking and therefore a specific religion can be credited for enabling secular thinking?

    Reply
  85. lnsflare1 Posted on September 2, 2019 at 4:39 pm

    I think that the secular equivalent of "sin" may be "thought crime."

    Reply
  86. Art Boman Posted on September 2, 2019 at 10:41 pm

    12:21 Funny how Ive read so much on this topic and never once heard anyone flesh out Ben’s “morality from reason” argument. That’s because you cant get morality from reason.

    Reply
  87. Thrunabulax Posted on September 3, 2019 at 8:03 am

    I think the idea of religion and science are separate things is part of the problem. Like philosophy, science and religion are obstensibly about the search for truth. I'm curious what Jesus and his crew were actually studying leading up to his ministry. The idea of "worshipping" some dude or idol or anything is kinda pointless. People worship whatever their attention goes to most. That's no one else's concern. There's only a couple of pages of Christ's words available to study, so who knows, maybe he had the formula for world peace. We just got the stuff in the Bible. Religion is just the ratification of existing practice with artistic embellishments.

    Reply
  88. Nehemiah Scudder Posted on September 3, 2019 at 7:45 pm

    Nothing that is good is unique to the bible and nothing that is unique to the bible is good.

    Reply
  89. Gustav Gnöttgen Posted on September 4, 2019 at 5:32 am

    I hereby say that all human grace comes from me. I grant it, you may believe in me or not. And if you don't do what my vice executives say I may take that grace from you, duh.
    Also I'm good so shut up. You can't understand me by nature and that's also part of my plan.

    Reply
  90. Xadion Posted on September 4, 2019 at 6:22 am

    This reminds me of something a woman told me when I was talking about Japanese history some years ago.

    "The Japanese committed atrocities because they weren't Christians"

    Like that could stop people from committing violence…

    Reply
  91. hgnisnhoj Posted on September 4, 2019 at 9:19 am

    Psalm 137 does not promote killing infants, the jews are angry at their oppressors, is it written in the bibel that god or the ancient jews kill babies in Babylon? Slaves might be wishing the worst for their masters….

    Reply
  92. Max Peeples Posted on September 6, 2019 at 3:54 am

    I absolutely love your use of Chopin in transitions. Please never stop.

    Reply
  93. MrNudl Posted on September 8, 2019 at 4:25 am

    don't know why you showed up in my feed.
    One thing that bothers me about atheism is that proposes an irrational absolute "there is no god" when it is impossible to prove such a position

    Reply
  94. Steven bent1 Posted on September 8, 2019 at 6:51 pm

    @ theramin trees Thxs for the chance to engage the rigidity of these pricks who want to shove this religion up the asses or down the throats of usually defenseless children. Canadian Boarding school among many other legacies of said pedophilic based religion. Some of the idiots can't quit which makes for a better expose of the shit they try to peddle.

    Reply
  95. Matt Brody Posted on September 9, 2019 at 3:03 am

    Well, to be fair, there are some moral concepts that gained popularity through Abrahamic religions. One example is from the Kosher diet, where the most basic limitation is the sourcing of ingredients and the morality of consuming certain resources. The fundamental premise here is the humanitarian aspect of not taking too much. For example, if you get meat for any meal, you slaughter the animal to keep it from suffering, whereas other societies during the formation of Judaism would keep animals alive, cleaving off what they wanted, then bandaging up the animal for later consumption. Next, don't take more than one resource from any given animal, and this may sound a little stupid with the example I'm providing, but it's a pretty basic one. Cheeseburgers aren't Kosher because the meat and cheese are both from a cow. I'll go ahead and make this a separate chunk to make things more clear.

    To be kosher, the minimum requirement is that if you take the resources in your meal (if they pertain to the same source) and craft a worst-case scenario around them, it should still be a scenario that is moral. Cheese is a result of processing milk, which cows only produce when they have calves to feed. If we assume the cow gives birth, is milked and is then subsequently slaughtered, the resources for the cheeseburger have resulted in a lonely starving orphan, and regardless of species, that is never acceptable.

    Reply
  96. Jack Kane Posted on September 10, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    Here we are gathered
    In a non physical place,
    No one trusts one another,
    There is no face to face.

    While intelligence is abundant here
    Reality and facts they do smear,
    No one really understands
    their authoritative proper sphere.

    We here lack balance
    Evident by extremes,
    While evidence is not lacking
    We all seem to think.

    If there really is no standard
    Then there really is no law,
    The law of nature is everywhere
    But no one sees at all.

    For when we live in a jungle
    Of concrete steel and screens,
    We miss the bigger picture
    That is busting at it's seams.

    Reply
  97. Ajay Malolan Posted on September 11, 2019 at 2:39 am

    A Christian propaganda ad for this video.

    Reply
  98. Captain Grub Posted on September 11, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    In the states it may be that the term "Judeo-Christian" came into use during WW ll (to help otherwise reluctant Christians get motivated).

    Reply
  99. JD Raeb Posted on September 11, 2019 at 9:06 pm

    My mental health has improved dramatically since getting honest about Christianity and finally letting go of my faith in it.It's a miracle *pun intended*Your videos not only gave me clarity on the issue but also the ability to ease the pain that came with finally accepting the truth.It hurt deeply coming to terms with it but the truth shall set you free and your videos helped give me the courage to step out of my self made prison that christianity pushed me into.From the bottom of my heart.Thank you.

    Reply
LEAVE A COMMENT