Something to bash on

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Sorry, must have been my misuse of 'judo' for 'Judeo' that confused you (since fixed). Indeed, inasmuch as Christianity is largely based on Judaism, you could make that claim. On the other hand, since no hatred is stronger than family hatreds, Christianity by and large hates Judaism almost as much as they hate each other's sects. Making that claim at best a joke.
Bull#$%&. Go read the damned thing. Sandwiched between a bunch of mythology and 'duties' to god, and a nice big chunk of thought police crap are precisely FOUR laws:
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
A basis for a legal system? Hardly. Four almost universally acknowledged principles surrounded by five times the verbiage devoted to religion. If I accept these four principles, should I also accept that god made the universe in six days, and that's why I should rest on Saturday. Or do you propose posting only those four commandments that don't promulgate the religious agenda?
"All horses are animals, thus all animals are horses". I really expect better logic from you, Occhi.

--Pete

Fine, in your view, the sky is falling, it's raining clay tablets all over the land, striking down unbelievers right and left. I'll make sure to carry my kevlar umbrella when I go out tomorrow. :P The symbol, what the Ten Commandments represents, if I might choose my words a touch more carefully, embodies the codification of laws as a "best practice." Given that the Mosaic laws run on for verse after verse in the OT, the Ten C's are a symbolic shorthand for that. That some people consider them an end unto themselves is another matter, and not one which gives me faith in the future of a harmonious social climate.

Christianity is most definitely not Judaism. It is inclusive, not exclusive for one thing. (Yeah, once one does that initiation, which used to be, Old School, "getting naked and skinny dipping" in a symbolic ritual. ) In two thousand years, the two creeds have diverged profoundly. (Your remark on the mutual antipathy hits the X on the target. ) Given the immense cultural change in the world in the last 300 years, I find a two thousand year timeline more than sufficient to draw a very clear demarcation between Judeo and Christian. Lord knows, the both of those houses have, and continue, to do so.

Or maybe the stain of "original idea" cannot be erased. Is that your theme? Should I presume that Democracy and Communism are the same, but they just hat each other, since they both arose into their modern form through differing strands of "Enlightenment Thought?" That the Enlightenment "relearned" some pre Christian ideals is an irony not lost on me.

"Judeo Christian" is, IMO, one of the grossest misnomers running around. I think it contributes to some of the Far Right Evangelical whacko's and their angenda. One has to choose: are you Judeo, or are you Christian? The element of choice is remarkably simple: was Jesus a man, or divine?

Pick one, and run with it, but but a choice is required.

That split is the critical difference, and it makes for an immense distinction, since all else follows, or doesn't, from that choice.

Or, reject having to make that choice, and go the agnostic or athiest route. Or maybe the Tao. They make better tea.

Occhi