Is Christianity Inherently Immoral?

[Moonjuice]

Above you're not happy because salvation in Christianity is too strict, here that it is too broadly offered. I'd say you are confused in your criticism

Emu, that’s an incorrect assessment of what I’m “not happy” about. The strictness or leniency of the salvation narrative isn’t my issue at all. Its the immorality of it, hence the title of the post. Its the idea that child rapists and murders can be given salvation, that would be denied to someone who has never done anything but good for the world (like running an orphanage for abused children in India or something else we would all agree is an honorable way to live your life.)

 

[Mister Emu]

Most people are good, most of the time.

And most people know this, even Christians. Experience trumps ideology.

The ideology of original sin says nothing about the relative frequency of moral or immoral behavior or cognition, only that we are all fail at least some of the time. Most Christians around the world do not learn that we are demented monsters, but that we are mostly the good creation of God, touched by immorality.

1. It is immoral to create beings who don't yet understand right from wrong, and then tell them not to eat a fruit, and then when they eat the fruit because they didn't understand how or why it is wrong to disobey, to punish them for it.

You are conflating knowledge of good and evil with the ability to follow directives with known punishments. "If you run out into the street you may die, and so if you do so I'm going to grab you, remove you from the street and then spank you" to a child who has just learned to run around. Immoral because they don't know right from wrong or understand why running in to the street is wrong? Nonsense.

They knew not to eat the fruit, they knew they would be punished for doing so. That they didn't know it was evil or the how and why of the consequences is immaterial.

2. It is immoral to punish an innocent person for someone else's crimes.

I'm pretty sure you aren't saying personal sacrifice for the good of others is immoral.

And you know the rest.

Is the rest: "actually there is no price, you just have to ask for it, you don't even have to ask me I'll point you to the producer" and "It is likely I'm going to be brutally murdered for even telling you about this, but I will risk it (and as many did) and suffer it to help you?" As with the reality of how Christianity started?

Also the snake didn't actually lie to them, they wouldn't end up dying from eating it.

That is not the story, for the story is that they did indeed die. Physically and spiritually, the moment they ate they were in the process of death. If we want to criticize the story, we should actually stick to it and not interpolate.

If God is the source of morality, then whatever He does, including ripping pregnant women apart, as He commanded, must be necessarily moral.

since that sort of morality is tautologically defined by what God commands, it is also meaningless, unless there is an external source of objective morality God needs to follow too, a bit like the laws of logic.

It's both. God created an objective system of morality, and objective metaphysical structure which dictates how existence ought to unfold from any given point in time. It is a limit that God has set on Himself as well, and He breaks it not with His wrath, nor with His mercy.

and that is immoral. And detestable. Since it is indistinguishable from requiring to kneel down, kiss the ring of the mafia boss, so that it can protect you. Or else.

I know much of the world finds it detestable and unbearable to be stripped of unwarranted pride.

 

[firedragon]

My comment had nothing to do with blaming Christianity for anything, I didn’t say that, nor did I imply that. I was illustrating the simple fact that what we all (Christians included) think is moral has changed over time.

Okay. Sorry if I misrepresented you.

Can you tell me something. Do you think giving the other cheek is a different morality? Was that a higher grade than the modern day morality or was that lower? Its been 2000 years almost since that was written down. Almost.

 

[Mister Emu]

The factual accuracy of actions in human history have no bearing on the morality of those actions, as long as you agree on the factual accuracy. It’s historically accurate to say Nazi’s killed Jews. We can prove this to be factually accurate. Do we think we can’t decide if those actions are immoral?

You asked if the fall/salvation narrative were the "most immoral religious idea still in practice today". If the Christian narrative of the fall and salvation are relatively accurate descriptions of our historical reality, on what grounds can we declare the practice of keeping them immoral?

I got the sense that what you were saying when you noted it as the #1 reason to reject Christianity, that you weren't in fact saying you reject a God who you believe in as real because you do not accept the actions, but that you reject Christianity as reflecting reality because of the idea.

I think the fact that you think I have made a significant departure from the actual idea illustrates a lager problem.

That's only a problem for people who hold to the modern invention of scripture alone. Most Christians do not, being from Churches founded before the Christian scriptures were written.

Emu, that’s an incorrect assessment of what I’m “not happy” about. The strictness or leniency of the salvation narrative isn’t my issue at all.

I think you'll that see I did offer an alternative.

Its the immorality of it, hence the title of the post. Its the idea that child rapists and murders can be given salvation, that would be denied to someone who has never done anything but good for the world (like running an orphanage for abused children in India or something else we would all agree is an honorable way to live your life.)

First, Christianity does not postulate that a perfect human, one who has truly only ever done good solely of their own accord under their own power, would even need salvation; the whole point of salvation is that we don't exist as someone who has only ever done good. Of course, you might think this immoral too, but a whole big thing in Christianity is to disabuse people of the prideful notion that they are intrinsically better or more worthwhile than anyone else.

Second, you didn't answer my question. Do you believe the consequences of a serious crime should be averted for prior good acts? If I save ten people, do I get to murder one because clearly I've outweighed the one bad act with my good ones, I've "earned" the pass?

It's pride to imagine one's virtuous human endeavors can be used to sanctify the immorality you bring into your being through evil acts. To imagine you are so good that you cover your own failings.

 

[osgart]

Growing up with Christianity it was very difficult to see it for what it is; blind commands, incoherent, and truly immoral. I'm amazed at the influence it has on so many people. So many people make better of it than the actual scripture dictates.

' God said it, I believe it, that settles it ' is no way to choose a morality, and a way of life. A good morality justifies itself with reason and understanding; it explains itself. Christianity asserts things and gives no good reasons to justify its actions. Blind trust is what it demands.

 

[Nimos]

That is not the story, for the story is that they did indeed die. Physically and spiritually, the moment they ate they were in the process of death. If we want to criticize the story, we should actually stick to it and not interpolate.

Well the story can be interpret in many ways. But I don't think I have been unfair to it.

Genesis 3:4-7
4 - But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
5 - For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
This is what the serpent claims will happen.

6 - So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
7 - Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
This is what happens after they eat it, they gain knowledge which Eve desires, nothing should be wrong with that. But they don't die, the process might have started as you said, but if that was the case. This is slightly weird:

Genesis 3:22-24
22 - Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”
23 - therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
24 - He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
So God is annoyed or angry at man that they now know the difference between these, which apparently is a bad thing. And is now scared that they will eat from the tree of life and live forever... So one could argue that the price of not dying, is that man is supposed to be mindless robots, unable to judge things.
Since God clearly does not want man to be able to know the difference between good and evil like him and also live forever. Which is kind of weird, if God believes that he can judge correctly between them, then humans ought to as well, if we are like him. But guess he doesn't trust us with that or however one will interpret it.

So there are lots of ways you can interpret it, but I don't really think I have been unfair in regards to how the story is told in the bible, the word spiritual is not even mentioned, so I guess that is something you added in your interpretation, which is no issue?

 

[Wildswanderer]

morality to be a method for evaluating social interactions as desirable or undesirable with respect to the goal of advancing human wellbeing. With or without a god, that will always matter to me.

Well that's a moving target. What advances my well-being may kill you.
There has to be some objective standard or it's all gooblygook.

 

[Moonjuice]

Okay. Sorry if I misrepresented you.

Can you tell me something. Do you think giving the other cheek is a different morality? Was that a higher grade than the modern day morality or was that lower? Its been 2000 years almost since that was written down. Almost.

What does give the other cheek mean? If we can agree on the context, I’d be happy to share my thoughts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Reality is this: God is real to those who truly seek him.

I would say in terms of accuracy, the reality is that God is mentally real for a number of people within their minds.

It's a cerebral belief without tangability. That's why people are forced to accommodate that reality by resorting to saying things along the lines that God is purposely hidden, mysterious, out of sight etc, requiring 'seeking'.

 

[firedragon]

What does give the other cheek mean? If we can agree on the context, I’d be happy to share my thoughts.

Well, it means something like absolute Ahimsa. At least in terms of the second Gospel to be written.

 

[Heyo]

The ideology of original sin says nothing about the relative frequency of moral or immoral behavior or cognition, only that we are all fail at least some of the time.

Well, it surely focuses on the negative. And it has a very twisted view of morality when it proclaims that humans are sinners through inheritance. According to Christian doctrine you were a sinner before you took your first breath, before you were even able to commit any immoral act. That is the snake-oil sales tactic @blü 2 was talking about, telling people that they are ill and offering the cure (salvation through Jesus). And you don't have a chance to avoid the need of snake oil.

Most Christians around the world do not learn that we are demented monsters, but that we are mostly the good creation of God, touched by immorality.

We agree on that. But some people have a very negative image of man, and it is often those who preach the loudest. (You can see a recent example in the thread Human cruelty)

 

[Clara Tea]

If I were to make a list of the top 10 reasons why I lost all faith in the Christian narrative, I think the fundamental “fall of man & need for salvation” concept would be #1. Could this be the most immoral religious idea still in practice today? Having lived it, loved it, felt it, shared it for years, it’s strange to have to admit, I think it might be.

For those who don’t know, this is quick overview of the basic Christian salvation narrative:

- God creates the first man and woman.

- God gives two commands; multiply the earth (incest is required, since your children will need to have sex with each other) and do not eat fruit from a particular tree.

- God allows an evil fallen angel (in the form of a talking serpent ) to trick humans into breaking the fruit eating rule. The only rule. As a result, all future humans are born with a natural instinct to disobey god (sin).

- God chooses to punish them, their children, their grandchildren. In fact, every human born from that point on. Sparing the evil talking snake that caused it all.

- God changes his mind thousands of years later. He decides that he wants to give humans a chance to save themselves from his punishment, which they deserve, because our ancestors broke the fruit eating rule, and live for all of eternity in heaven with him.

- Rather than forgiving us, he decides the best way to offer salvation is to send himself to earth in human form (Jesus), then allow himself to be brutally, yet temporarily murdered. 3 days later, he came back to life and went back to heaven. This barbaric human sacrifice of himself, somehow allows himself to forgive us of the rules we break, based on the rule breaking nature we are born with.

- If you can be convinced this has happened, with nothing more than hearsay to go by, this vicarious redemption can save you from his punishment. If not, you will not be saved. It doesn’t matter what kind of person you are, what kind of honorable life you live, or how well you treat other humans or animals.

- Meanwhile…child rapists, murderers, and the worst scum of the earth can live forever in paradise with Jesus as well, earning salvation by simply believing the story and asking for forgiveness for all the child rape and murder.

- BTW, He loves you, that is why he is offering you this chance. Take it, or die.

Indoctrination is powerful! It’s not hard to come up with a creative interpretation that tells the same story in a way that makes you feel happy about this offer. It’s a wonderful gift to be born into these circumstances where he offers to save you from his punishment. He loves you, he’ll protect you in this life, and will reward you with eternal life in paradise after you die.

If I wasn’t born in a Christian home, with a Christian family, attending a Christian school, surrounded by Christian friends, I’m convinced that an unbiased look at this basic concept could have led me to believe this is nothing more than a cult of human sacrifice, born from a cult of barbaric animal sacrifice. Not so easy to see from the inside.

Can an idea like vicarious redemption be moral? I’m not convinced.

One can find immorality in Christianity. However, most immorality isn't about following Christianity, it is about ignoring its precepts. For example, we all know that we are not supposed to kill....yet, there are wars.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, I consider Christianity inherently immoral.

Divine Command Theory is immoral if there is no interventionalist god, which appears to be the case. For the same reason, claiming that people are fallen, sinful, corrupt, and born worthy of punishment without atonement is immoral. Substitutionary atonement is immoral. Teaching children hell theology is psychological terrorism. Demonizing and marginalizing homosexuals, transgendered people, and atheists is immoral.

And what kind of morality is it if it's based on being continuously watched and judged, with rewards for good behavior and punishment for bad? One can have zero moral sense or be unashamedly immoral and respond to those two. Children and pets do, and we hardly call it moral behavior when they do.

 

[Mister Emu]

And it has a very twisted view of morality when it proclaims that humans are sinners through inheritance.

It doesn't proclaim that, though. Original sin is not a teaching that we are guilty by virtue of some act an ancestor. It is that the ancestor's act damaged you, just like too much radiation exposure can have deleterious effects on subsequent generations through genetic malformation.

According to Christian doctrine you were a sinner before you took your first breath, before you were even able to commit any immoral act.

The original sin doctrine does not say you are a sinner before you sin. It's an understanding of how we got to the point where we do sin. Because we have the knowledge to know what is immoral and still choose to act in that way, and thus bring the evil into our very being.

But some people have a very negative image of man, and it is often those who preach the loudest.

Agreed, unfortunately.

 

[Mister Emu]

Substitutionary atonement is immoral.

Self sacrifice for the good of others is immoral?

And what kind of morality is it if it's based on being continuously watched and judged, with rewards for good behavior and punishment for bad? One can have zero moral sense or be unashamedly immoral and respond to those two

It's a good thing then that Christianity is expressly concerned with internal state while external actions are used only to gauge those internal states. Christianity doesn't say 'don't adulter' nearly so much as it says 'don't lust'. 'Don't murder' is replaced with 'don't be wrathful'. We are called not to the perfection of action, but the perfection of being (or at least a desire for the perfection of being) with action as the result.

 

[Heyo]

It doesn't proclaim that, though. Original sin is not a teaching that we are guilty by virtue of some act an ancestor. It is that the ancestor's act damaged you, just like too much radiation exposure can have deleterious effects on subsequent generations through genetic malformation.

The original sin doctrine does not say you are a sinner before you sin. It's an understanding of how we got to the point where we do sin. Because we have the knowledge to know what is immoral and still choose to act in that way, and thus bring the evil into our very being.

One of us hasn't understood Christian doctrine - or we are talking about different Christianities. Probably the later with a selection of 41,000+ sects.

 

[AlexanderG]

Well that's a moving target. What advances my well-being may kill you.
There has to be some objective standard or it's all gooblygook.

Morality certainly is a messy moving target. Again, please try to have some self-awareness. What advanced the interests of one sect of Christians who killed another sect of Christians (or non-Christians) all throughout history was obviously against the interest of the party being killed. Religious morality in no way solves this problem. In fact, I think it's much easier to dehumanize and kill others if you belief it's the will of an ultimate being.

There need not being any objective standard. We only need to value common goals. Since I don't believe your god exists, I can't value your goal of living according to his will, and I can't believe sin exists because it is by definition a crime against this god. To me, it's a victimless crime. What we CAN do is identify goals that we do both share, and then cooperatively take the path that will objectively advance those common subjective goals.

 

[viole]

I know much of the world finds it detestable and unbearable to be stripped of unwarranted pride.

Yes, and that Christians are happy to be submissive sheep submitting to an imaginary dictator in the skies. I wonder where we will be now if we followed through the roman and greek culture, instead of embracing such a despicable and spineless worldview. A religious factory of spineless sea going sheep.

and, as I said, it is the same of the mafia boss requesting you to bow to him and admit submission, so that you are protected.

is that moral? To relinquish what we are, and submit to dictators, or else?

ciao

- viole

 

[AlexanderG]

AlexanderG previously said: "It is immoral to create beings who don't yet understand right from wrong, and then tell them not to eat a fruit, and then when they eat the fruit because they didn't understand how or why it is wrong to disobey, to punish them for it."

You replied: "You are conflating knowledge of good and evil with the ability to follow directives with known punishments. "If you run out into the street you may die, and so if you do so I'm going to grab you, remove you from the street and then spank you" to a child who has just learned to run around. Immoral because they don't know right from wrong or understand why running in to the street is wrong? Nonsense.
They knew not to eat the fruit, they knew they would be punished for doing so. That they didn't know it was evil or the how and why of the consequences is immaterial."

AlexanderG previously said: "It is immoral to punish an innocent person for someone else's crimes."

You replied: "I'm pretty sure you aren't saying personal sacrifice for the good of others is immoral."

1. I think you were missing my main point, which was that god knowingly created them so that they would decide to eat the fruit that he provided, and then punished them for it. That's immoral. Also, I'm pretty sure god tells them they "will surely die" if they eat the fruit, not that he will punish them. They only knew they were disobeying his request, which they couldn't understand was wrong, and had no idea they'd be punished. A better analogy than your example would be telling a child "if you run into the street you'll die," and then the child is later convinced they won't die, runs into the street and doesn't die, and you say "now I'm going to hit you forever and when you grow up and have your own kids I'll hit them forever too." It's immoral.

2. Right, I'm not saying a personal sacrifice for the good of others is immoral. I'm saying it's immoral to punish an innocent person for someone else's crimes. I consider these to be two separate moral categories. A legal system that allowed random people to voluntary sacrifice years of their lives by going to prison instead of convicted criminals...would be an immoral system. Working really hard to put my kids through school, or volunteering my time at a soup kitchen, or fighting to protect my country and dying in combat, is entirely different and entirely moral.

Jesus' substitutionary atonement is immoral on several levels.
The idea that someone must bleed before forgiveness becomes an option is immoral and grotesque. Given god could have simply forgiven people with no strings attached, the crucifixion is basically masochistic performance art and entirely gratuitous. "I love you so much that I'll torture my kid instead of you, even though I don't actually have to torture anyone and it's an arbitrary rule I made up." Immoral. A person who did this would be universally condemned as a psychopath. Sacrificing yourself to yourself to get around rules that you preside over is immoral and incoherent. Calling it any kind of "sacrifice" for an eternal being to have a bad weekend and then get to be an all-powerful god afterward is false and immoral. I've honestly never understood how this story is supposed to be good news, coherent, or praiseworthy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One can find immorality in Christianity. However, most immorality isn't about following Christianity, it is about ignoring its precepts. For example, we all know that we are not supposed to kill....yet, there are wars.

What about Armageddon?