Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[Kenny]

In all the organizations I've had business dealings with, one of the slipperiest and least honest was a Christian church.

I got the impression that they thought it was them and their fellow believers against the world, and they had no problem screwing over people who they considered to be on the opposite side from them.

I'm sorry for your experience, although it doesn't change who God is and what Jesus did. Maybe God is saying that mankind is the slipperiest and least honest creatures He has ever encountered? At least He didn't throw us in the garbage dump but still believes in humanity and reaches out the His creation... at least within the context of my signature.

 

[Kenny]

Yeah, that's what the say. And they do talk a lot about love and the freedom from sin. But abusive types frequently spin things around so the hatred and bitterness and intolerance are viewed as love.
And just like most others who adhere to the religion called Christianity you are doing all kinds of mental and lingual gymnastics to avoid confronting an uncomfortable reality and fact, and that is your religion is a living, hellish nightmare for very many people. Amd that is because the Bible--not hypocrites or fake Christians--goes on at length as it frequently condemns, ridicules and mocks the unsaved sinner, atheists, queers, and a host of other petty and trivial things that it's no surprise when someone is traumatized by it.

I find that more of a characteristics of humanity - not relegated to a single sector such as "religious" people. I find that the Bible basically says... "no one is better than another (vs mocking, condemning et al), but all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "There is no one that is righteous, no not one".

And then He came to right the problem (within the context of my signature)

 

[Kenny]

But yet those are the commands of the Father, a god so petty and self-centered that he even describes himself as jealous.
And, of course,you're "wrong testiment" is not universally held by Christians. Amd your so-called "correct testament" has an offensive "prophet" who tells women to shut up and compares becoming an apostate to a dog eating it's vomit.

It really is in your interpretation of the word "jealous". You are simply defining it in the negative sense.

As far as "women" are concerned, I believe the you are interpreting it wrongly. It was one of those thousand questions that I had until I asked and studied it.

You might try better and understanding the New Last Will and Testament instead of The Law. For that matter, you might want to start at the first 4 chapters of Genesis and start from there instead of interpreting the Bible through your experiences.

 

[osgart]

If someone is blindly submitting, and following a moral code believed to be sent from God, and doesn't know the causes and effects along with the reasons for following the code then that often leads to immorality. Not to mention that some moral codes in theology are just flat out wrong about what's real, true and just.

Since I believe in morality I see things as moral or immoral. A lot of people see morality as tastes and preferences, and thus morality is all in the eye of the beholder.

Ultimately morality, and moral responsibility comes down to being offended, or pleased at heart.

Obviously no one has reached any universal agreement on morality. That doesn't mean that there isn't anything universal. It may be that many people refuse anything universal. Or many people consider morality to be relative to its usefulness to their own particular lives.

If someone wants to determine the morality or immorality of something they'd have to recognize the reality of morality means that there is justice, and truth to it. Otherwise it's all ethics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As far as "women" are concerned, I believe the you are interpreting it wrongly.

A woman should keep quiet and hand her head in humility....i will not suffer a women to usurp authority over a man. There's no incorrect interpretation on my part. It's just as horribly misogynist as the OT with things like saying a woman is unclean while she's having her period.

It really is in your interpretation of the word "jealous". You are simply defining it in the negative sense.

That's because jealousy is a very nasty emotion that, beyond small amounts I've not even found a good use for (and I say humility is over rated).

You might try better and understanding the New Last Will and Testament instead of The Law. For that matter, you might want to start at the first 4 chapters of Genesis and start from there instead of interpreting the Bible through your experiences.

Now you're just making bas assumptions. Old me did actually want to be a pastor, I was the path towards it and being groomed for leadership.
I truth, I've forgotten more about the Bible than what most Christians will ever know.
You're like every other Christian who tries to insist I just didn't know and was surrounded by nothing but hypocrites. Except I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say that after a few Sundays because there was nothing remarkable, unique or abnormal about them.

I find that more of a characteristics of humanity - not relegated to a single sector such as "religious" people. I find that the Bible basically says... "no one is better than another (vs mocking, condemning et al), but all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "There is no one that is righteous, no not one".

And then He came to right the problem (within the context of my signature)

It says that, bht there's also a lot about punishing and calling out who are found to be in sin.

 

[Kenny]

A woman should keep quiet and hand her head in humility....i will not suffer a women to usurp authority over a man. There's no incorrect interpretation on my part. It's just as horribly misogynist as the OT with things like saying a woman is unclean while she's having her period.

Again... you are trying to interpret this within modern day understanding not to mention you are still in the Law with a misogynistic interpretation.

That's because jealousy is a very nasty emotion that, beyond small amounts I've not even found a good use for (and I say humility is over rated).

Yes... it can be a very nasty emotion... but there is a good definition too...

3
: vigilant in guarding a possession
new colonies were jealous of their new independence—Scott Buchanan

Definition of JEALOUS

hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage : envious; intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness; disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

4. Solicitous to defend the honor of; concerned for the character of.

I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts.

1 Kings 19:10.

5. Suspiciously vigilant; anxiously careful and concerned for.

I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. 2 Corinthians 11:2.

jealous

Now you're just making bas assumptions. Old me did actually want to be a pastor, I was the path towards it and being groomed for leadership.
I truth, I've forgotten more about the Bible than what most Christians will ever know.
You're like every other Christian who tries to insist I just didn't know and was surrounded by nothing but hypocrites. Except I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say that after a few Sundays because there was nothing remarkable, unique or abnormal about them.

Only because you keep misunderstanding the Bible. Hypocrites are found in any group of people even in the ones you hang around with.

It says that, bht there's also a lot about punishing and calling out who are found to be in sin.

Again... I'm sorry for your bad experience but Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again... you are trying to interpret this within modern day understanding not to mention you are still in the Law with a misogynistic interpretation.

I'm interpreting what is there. That's not hard to do.
All your doing is just saying I'm wrong but with nothing to back the claim up. But in truth there are very, very few Christians who actually have listened to me and considered what I say. They don't dismiss me just to safeguard their ego.

Yes... it can be a very nasty emotion... but there is a good definition too...

3
: vigilant in guarding a possession

Yeah, guarding a possession most likely isn't going to be worth it. Most the time it's replacable or the risks are just too great.

Solicitous to defend the honor of; concerned for the character of.

We see how nasty this is in places like India or Pakistan where they have honor killgs, sepuku and kamikaze in Japan, or even an idea of masculinity in America that is self destructive and eager to look down on women as, as the definition of #3, possessions to be guarded.

Suspiciously vigilant; anxiously careful and concerned for.

Suspicious and anxiety. Thats a bad way of doing business

Again... I'm sorry for your bad experience but Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.

Seems to me you're more sorry for the damage suffered to the cult called Christianity than you are sorry about my, or others abused by the Church, suffering that happened.
If this isn't the case then why keep insisting I'm wrong and was in with hypocrites? Amd that's what so very many Christians do. It's nothing wrong with the Bible saying people deserve death and are abominations and have done sin with just a thought, it's me and how I just wamted to sin. It was a false church. My faith was never true.
But the icing on the cake is how these behaviors help drive people from Christianity. After all, you dismiss the complaints of those who leave as.nothing to be concerned about amd try to downplay the garbage and baggage found in the Bible.

 

[We Never Know]

Where is your evidence? What exactly did they teach me? Was it them being hypocritical or just repeating what's in the Bible?

Where is your evidence they were truly christians? IMO a large proportion of church goes are hypocrites.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where is your evidence they were truly christians? IMO a large proportion of church goes are hypocrites.

That's the thing about Christianity. I'm the true follower and everybody else is the hypocrite. And about 2000 years laterand countless schisms still not one of them--not a single one--can say who is definitively right and who is definitively wrong.
But it's easier to just reject, deny, amd dismiss everyone who is criticized than accept the fact Christianity itself has VERY problematic teachings and doctrine with a history of being psychologically traumatizing. It's one of the few times I actually agree with Richard Dawkins. Being groped is icky, but it hasn't been nearly as bad as things in the Bible (there regardless of the Church) thay left me fearful and plagued with nightmares like the doctrine of an angry god and eternal damnation.

 

[Heyo]

I find that more of a characteristics of humanity - not relegated to a single sector such as "religious" people. I find that the Bible basically says... "no one is better than another (vs mocking, condemning et al), but all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "There is no one that is righteous, no not one".

I agree.
But (most) people aren't born with a fully fledged moral system. They have their instincts and they have their socialization. Part of the socialization are the books that influence them. And the Bible (or other religious texts) are not a positive influence. Given the numbers of people who read the Bible and how they turn out to be compared to people who read, let's say Kant, and how they turn out to be, there is a bad track record for the Bible.
Yes, there are very moral Christian people, even by modern standards. But for every Dietrich Bonhoeffer you get a Greg Locke, a Fred Phelps and a Kent Hovind. Did the Bible help them on their path? They claim so and the later three sure like to cite the parts they find most influential.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Inspired by this thread:

Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say. It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral? And, does this have anything...

www.religiousforums.com

Sauce for the goose and all that.

My personal take: yes, theism often - though not always - leads to immoral behaviour.

I think it's even worse.

Theism can lead to the most immoral behavior imaginable, while believing that very behavior is not only righteous but even a moral duty

As that infamous quote goes:

Good people will do good things.
Bad people will do bad things.
For good people to do bad things, that takes religion

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do some people do immoral stuff. Yup. Id have to say theists atheists Scooby dooists all behave badly at times unfortunately

The difference is that there is nothing inherent to atheism that motivates such bad behavior, while there absolutely is in plenty of theistic religions.

For example, people in Nigeria wouldn't be burning "witches", if the bible didn't tell them that they exist and must be killed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think so. When theists do something that I would consider immoral, it is not normally because of their theism. I can't think of any immoral action that I have ever seen that was justified by theism.

How about homophobic actions? Do you think christian fundies would be hostile to gay people if their religion didn't tell them that homosexuality is "an abomination"?
How about islamist terrorism? Do you think islamic fundies would be flying planes into buildings if their religion didn't glorify jihad / martyrdom?
How about the burning of witches? Do you think fundies in Nigeria would be burning women alive believing they are witches if their religion didn't tell them they shouldn't allow witches to live?

I wouldn't say that religion in general leads to immoral behavior, either, though. It can, but it depends on the person and the religion.

I would agree with that.
It doesn't have to.

But if we are honest here, then for example the bible most definitely encourages immoral behavior. It's just that many people tend to ignore those parts. It's not the religion that motivates them not to engage in that behavior, because the religion says "do it". It's the followers themselves that cherry pick. It's their own human conscience that prevents them to follow those particular parts.

If all christians would follow everything in the bible to the letter, then a lot more horrible behavior would be seen in all nations dominated by christianity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say it did.
@Subduction Zone claimed that "Atheism is more moral"..

Atheism has nothing to do with morality.
Correlating statistics of atheists v theists is merely a ploy. It tells us nothing about their morality.

A barrage of refs. is a desperate tactic.

I agree with you. Atheism is a label that merely points to the absence of a very specific thing.
It is not a label that points to the presence of anything. Like an "asymmetrical shape". It doesn't tell you anything "positive" about the shape. It does not inform you about how the shape DOES look and / or what attributes it DOES have. It only tells you that whatever properties it does have, symmetry isn't one of them.

That is all.

Atheists surely have political views, moral views, etc.
Whatever does are, aren't derived from their atheism.
A political, moral,... view refers to the presence of a specific thing, while the label "atheism" refers only to the absence of specific thing.

It is true that most atheists, at least in western secular democracies, will tend to have a humanistic morality.
But as you say, that is merely a correlation. It does not naturally flow from the concept of "atheism".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How it does that?

Doctrine.

For example: Leviticus 18:22,Leviticus 20:13

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's also no such thing as "atheism" alone. There are LaVeyan Satanists, Buddhists, Humanists, Existentialists, and so on. As soon as we start accepting all theistic belief systems as "theism" we have to start accepting Stalinism, Machiavellianism, and Social Darwinism as "atheism," too.

I think that's an unnecessary and unproductive generalization to make.

I think that's an unfair comparison.

Atheism merely refers to the absence of a specific thing, while things like Humanism, Buddhism etc point to the presence of things.
Theism is a generalized term for the presence of a specific thing, which all theistic religions have in common.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How would you know? Are you are a mind-reader?

It's the defining characteristic of religious belief.
It requires "faith". If it were based on reason and objective evidence instead, it wouldn't require "faith".
It wouldn't even require the labels "theism" and "religion".
Instead, it then would be just "knowledge" and shared by consensus. There would be no need to distinguish those specific beliefs from other beliefs.

This is why the theory of relativity, for example, isn't considered a religious belief.

You do not teach us anything .. atheism has nothing to teach.

Off course it doesn't. It's just a label to refer to people who aren't theists.
As a label, it is rather meaningless. It's like having a word for people who don't play soccer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, actually it is "accepting absurd ideas" that can lead to immoral behavior, not necessary religions.

Yep.

And what does it take to "accept absurd ideas"?
It takes the unquestioned acceptance of dogma / ideology.

This is precisely what religion tends to demand.
It is also what political ideologies like Stalinism demand.

So I would take the OP and break it open into:
"Unquestioned acceptance of dogma / ideology leads to immoral behavior".

Morality takes reasoning and skepticism of authority.
Whenever one gets ones morality handed to them from an authority, one sacrifices their moral compass and more often then not will end up acting immorally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not necessarily only religions. Not all absurd ideas are religious but all religions are absurd ideas.

Kind of like fingers and thumbs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe to you. But, why do you think Christianity is absurd?

It demands belief in magic.