To ask if you are not a Christian, what non Christian values you live by?

[BlossomBlanket]

Just that really!

Yes, but in the Biblical rape situation you end up with women forced to marry their rapist. I believe this also still happens in fundamentalist Islam. And it's unacceptable.

But it's also rape to have sex with someone you're married to without their enthusiastic consent. Which many men ignore....

Compassion, kindness and understanding where ever reasonable.

You are told to love and honour. The sorts of men who aren't going to do that are hardly likely to pay heed to the litany of specific prohibitions you seem to want.

That is unacceptable. But tell it to all the others on this thread who say there's no difference between Christianity and Islam

I mean, if we look at America it seems the more Christian you proclaim yourself to be, the less likely you are to follow “Christian values”.

I don’t believe in god. I do believe it’s important to treat others with kindness and respect, help people if you are able to, and just don’t be a dick.

What is the litany of specific prohibitions you seem to want.? What prohibitions have I specified I want?

If you look at the US, you will see that child marriage is still legal in 38 states. When it happens, it's usually because the (underage) woman is pregnant and there is heavy pressure on her to marry. And if you were to ask the people in those cases, the vast majority of them would claim to be Christians and justify what they're doing because the Bible. The point here is not that the Bible is bad, or that Christianity is worse than other faiths, it's that people do things in groups they would not contemplate doing alone - and what is organised religion but a group?

I also seriously take issue with the whole 'well, it's all sex outside marriage so that makes it OK'. Circling back to homosexuality - according to many Christians, homosexuals can't marry the person they are attracted to, because marriage is between a man and a woman. And therefore, homosexuals can never have sex with someone they are attracted to. Then you end up with 'praying the gay away', people desperately going into marriages with someone of the opposite sex, conversion 'therapy' - all in the name of religion. I will have no truck with a deity who demands that of his people. If a human parent did that to a child, they would be considered deeply abusive.

Because the answer isn’t in the book of fairy tales ;)

I value being open to divinity in many forms, and holding things as sacred that are not connecting to a singular deity. So, I value not being monotheistic.

I value having purpose and meaning that has no connection to divinity. I go past a church regularly with a big sign on how the purpose of life is to worship and enjoy God, I grew up around similar, and that's not a mindset I'd want.

I value vigilance. No organisation - or person within the organisation - is above scrutiny, and I do include divinity in that. I think Christian concepts like those within Roman 9 that as clay to a potter we should not question, we should accept even the lack of free will described in that chapter as part of divine mercy, has no value.

I value of wisdom from varying sources, and being critical of how those sources of information are passed onto me. All texts and other sources of information, along with the medium and methods of transmitting them, should be open to scrutiny. I value not having a canon of texts to guide me.

I value being critical of solutions, even of what appears generous. I think it's valuable to not accept so-called difficult solutions to problems should be praised when the person giving the solution is also the person who created the problem and has other, better solutions (Killing Jesus to grant people eternal life, when God kicked humans out of the Garden of Eden to prevent humans from eating the fruit that would have granted eternal life...and that's before getting into the concept that the Christian God created Hell and the system that places a significant part of the population there or destroys their soul, depending on the reading when an omnipotent being could have created literally any other system such a being chose...).

Have you heard of the Bible?

Yes, the Bible is a anthology of texts from groups of authors - many who weren't Christian, would have no idea about Christianity, and were not writing about Christian values - who had different agendas and perspectives over the centuries that was compiled, edited and re-edited many times to fit different agendas and perspectives, varying texts included or left out depending on perspectives when different Christian groups chose to make canons, and just in English there are many translations, many with very particular outcomes focused on in translation choices. that have little to do with accuracy.

It's one of many texts that are held in high esteem, and like all others has wisdom and issues. It like all texts should be scrutinised.

[Christianity's] stance on usury for instance, shared with Islam but not by Judaism

Christianity's stance on usury comes from Jewish writings, much that held it as a serious sin - the writers of Ezekiel call it the worst of sins and compare it to bloodshed - and prohibitions against usury pre-date those Jewish writings significantly. The earliest writings against usury are what we would now call Hindu writings - shall we call it a Hindu value?

No I was correct.. If they believe this then they are not Christian.

Christianity has always been internally diverse. This is shown in Christian texts with the infighting between Peter and Paul, this is shown in writings of early church leaders calling each other heretics, calling different Christian writings heretics. There are some texts we only know exist because some early Christian leader ranted about how heretical it was.

One person's heretic is another's faith leader, and the idea of hell being inevitable for all who have not gone to the father through Jesus (as well as inevitable for all those simply chosen to be objects of wrath, made for destruction) can be as found in the texts as can lighter interpretations. The texts also support the concept of soul annihilation. That's part of why there has always been many denominations and arguing about it.

All faith groups are internally diverse. Faiths all vary over time and place & are an integral part of cultures. Fewer Christian groups taking the strong line on hell as inevitable for most is a noticeable cultural shift, that doesn't mean that line stopped existing or isn't part of Christianity's complex history.

No. Because you might want to have consensual sex and not be married. They’re two entirely different things.

Because as a fundamental it requires individuals to take responsibility for their own decisions.

Also consider that you seem to be suggesting here that rape cannot happen within marriage.

Agree - no one is going to wait until they are married to have sex!

I think you have misunderstood how many denominations act. PB are far from a homogenous sect, there's lots of Bible study, looking at what could be meant by different passages of text - I think you are thinking of closed Brethren as being exclusive biblical literalists.

But also if you want to know where the concept comes from - Deuteronomy. Most of Deuteronomy.

You are also ascribing a Catholic theology to all Christians - when not even the Catholic Church regularly agrees on everything.

That is Christian - "Love one another as I have loved you".

It is also a general human value. Christianity does not own it. This is the problem: Christians like to take the credit for all human virtues. It's incredibly arrogant.

I was on a train... And it is important to still debate - even if you are debating with someone who is not discussing in good faith or who is just spouting their personal opinions as fact.

You have claimed to speak on behalf of all Christian denominations, despite having poor understanding of the breath of opinion and ideas across who whole Christian faith.

You are also cherry picking which parts of the bible/ Christian theology you want to exist. You can choose your own person belief system and interpretation of Christianity. That's perfectly reasonable. But you are continuously confidentially wrong on what many other Christians believe and preach.

@EsmeSusanOgg But also if you want to know where the concept comes from - Deuteronomy. Most of Deuteronomy.

That is not correct.

Historically, Jewish belief did not exclude non-Jews from having a place in heaven. While Judaism emphasizes the importance of righteous actions and following God's laws for all individuals, it does not assert that only Jews can achieve an afterlife or heaven. Jewish tradition acknowledges that the righteous of any people and any faith can also be in the afterlife, as actions determine one's fate rather than specific beliefs, according to ReformJuaeism.org

when not even the Catholic Church regularly agrees on everything.

That is also incorrect

We call these doctrines that all Catholics must accept de fide dogmas (or in some cases, ex cathedra). In a nutshell, though there are fine (sometimes very fine) distinctions that can be drawn, the Catholic is obliged, in the nature of the case, to accept all that the Church teaches.

It also predates Christianity and is common with multiple other world religions. A value can be universal, and also supported by Christianity. That is not mutually exclusive.

Deuteronomy taken in conjunction with Exodus and Acts was very much taught as being evidence of this across multiple PB chapels when I was growing up.

That may not be what you want to hear. But insisting that this is not something taught by some Christians is nonsense.

Also the history of Catholicism is littered with multiple theological disagreements - obvious most famously the many, many discussions that led to reformation and counter-reformation. There would have been no need for the Council of Trent to define the renaissance understanding of what it is to be Catholic otherwise (and that was not a quick process).

Doctrine continues to be refined and reimagined, often with each new Pontiff of Rome. Whilst there are central tenants of the Catholic faith, outside of those there is often a process of refinement of understanding.

Which is not to different from other denominations. The Quakers are probably the most famous Christian sect for looking at different issues and interpreting them anew with current information - which is why they were one of the first Christian groups to openly back equal marriage..

I agree with this. Very broadly I think most religions and cultures have had rules that are considered conducive to social stability. So in your example from Chinese mythology, that would be respect for elders (taken to an extreme). Christianity has similar teachings such as caring for the orphan and widow, and honouring your parents. But there are significant differences between different value systems.

One difficulty with defining Christian values is that there are obviously very contradictory interpretations being promoted by people calling themselves Christian. MAGA comes to mind.

But I suppose distinctively Christian* values would be: love your neighbour as yourself, love God, give from what you have to anyone in need (to the point where nobody should really be rich), forgive and love even your enemies, don't be a hypocrite, don't be ruled by lust, lifelong monogamy (marriage) or celibacy, follow the law of the land and obviously anything covered by the Ten Commandments, use your gifts to serve others, equal human dignity. Not that there has ever been a time when those values have been followed consistently by everyone calling themselves Christian.

*obviously not all are exclusive to Christianity

So what has your being on a train got to do with anything?

even if you are debating with someone who is not discussing in good faith or who is just spouting their personal opinions as fact.

That's just a nasty thinly-veiled put down -. not a constructive comment.

You have claimed to speak on behalf of all Christian denominations
I did no such thing and please don't spread misinformation.
I was giving the Catholic perspective and was very clear about that.

I'm a Catholic and as such have no need to get involved with other in depth theologies used by other Christian sects.
That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on other so-called Christian groups

... You asked why I replied to you? I had nothing better to do.

... I mean you have been continuously nasty to myself and other posters.

You have claimed to speak for Christians as a whole. And when pointed out that your interpretation is not universal continuously doubled down. Now being quite rude about other denominations -- in I do not know - an attempt to insult/ be rude to me? I'm not a Christian.