elcalebo,

Firstly, I have not said that there is no need for redemption. Whether or not we are in need of redemption depends on what you mean my “redemption”.

Secondly, I don’t necessarily deny that religion has had any positive effect on our current generally-agreed-upon notion of morality. What I would point out, however, is that you have no way of knowing that it was dependant upon it, nor that it was necessary (i.e. the assertion that we could not have gotten to the point that we’re at now (contrary to Christian theology predicting that the world would get worse) without Christianity).

You seem to touch, too, on this silly notion of ‘Judeo-Christian’ values, to which I have already put into perspecive at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7032#215553. No-one has ever been able to give me a clear explanation of what exactly a Judeo-Christian ethical system is beyond the Golden Rule (which was around long before either religion), and when one learns of the origins of the silly term, it’s no wonder.

I agree with you that when someone uses the phrase "Judeo-Christian values," chances are they're about to say something completely stupid, reactionary, and ahistorical.

However, it would be fallacious of us to suppose that just because these people are stupid, we can't ever say anything positive about the impact of Jewish and Christian moral thought on societies. Fortunately you're not doing that. You acknowledge that this kind of positive influence is possible. But you quite rightly point out that it's hard to prove this causation, and impossible to prove that such causation was necessary (note: I don't claim it was necessary).

For an indication of the kind of positive influence I'm talking about (quite different to the "Judeo-Christian" rubbish), you may enjoy this debate between a Christian and a humanist on the inherent value of the human being. The humanist acknowledges that there does seem to have been important Christian influence on the liberal-democratic consensus that all humans are inherently valuable. He argues, however, that this humanism can stand alone without the metaphysical and transcendent considerations that originally gave rise to it. He also argues that it's better when standing alone.
(Of course, I'm not saying you have to agree with this humanist!).
http://veritas.org/talks/people-suffer-who-cares-secular-humanist-and-christian-dialogue/?view=locations&location=3260

Lastly: lest these comments be construed as Christian supremacism - various polls show that Muslims and atheists are often a lot better at supporting inherent human dignity in practice:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx
http://religiondispatches.org/christians-more-supportive-of-torture-than-non-religious-americans/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/18/who-would-jesus-torture.html

By the way, you seem like you might be repeating your pattern of treating one school of thought within Christian theology as if it's the only Christian stance on the matter (this time re: eschatology and whether the world will get better, worse, neither, both, or whether all options are open).

As an atheist and someone that supports marriage equality, I don't agree with much of what the catholic church is trying to say.

However, what I find particularly abhorrent is the attack on free speech and the attempts by the left whingers to crush dissenting opinions.

I find it strange that those purportedly fighting for social justice are also trying to impose the worst form of oppression.

The catholic church is a sham, they have lived a lie right from the very beginning. Unless that can be addressed and mend their mistakes their demise is assured. Only the blind can follow their belief.

579,

" Only the blind can follow their belief"

You are Catholic then?

AJ I think I can help answer your query, as far as what Judeo-Christian values could look like. I dont want to pretend that what I'm about to say is the only answer, because I can't control the intent of others. However.

Values are things that are done or believed by people, that are/were seperate from the laws of the land (possible inlcuding Western Civilisation, if thats what anyone wants to believe). As a modern day, non-religious example: I believe that gambling is bad so I choose not to gamble, but the law allows me to gamble if I wish.

So the question then is what are our Judeo-Christian values. Firstly though, some disclaimers:

-When I claim something as being from a Judeo-Christian value, I'm not saying that it was something that could only be gained exclusively from Jews or Christians, but that they were valued because they were Jewish or Christian values.
-I am not claiming that all, or possibly even the majority of the values of our modern society came from the Judeo-Christian background, merely that some have been brought down.

So. Some from the Judeo:
- Monotheism
- 10 Commandments
- Theological Debate (Again, not exclusive to the Jews but we were influenced by them)

And some from the Christian:
- Personal relationship with God (As a father figure)
- Service
- Separation of church and state. (Importantly this was not a value in the Catholic church, but it was recognised by Christ himself, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars)

All of the above, while not gained exclusively from the Judeo-Christian value set are no doubt shared with them.

Ultimately that means that the people who have been raised with Christian values will find in them a Christian, or Judeo-Christian tradition. Meanwhile those who are taught the same values will find a different history for the traditions that they adhere to.

I think it all boils down to a matter of perspective, not exclusivity.