Is Christianity Inherently Immoral?

[Wildswanderer]

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'.

He's as real as the air you breathe, which I assume you believe to exist.
It's not just cerebral, it's spiritual.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Gooblygook. Our whole system in this country was built on the ten commandments.
People abused it, but the foundation was the right one.

 

[blü 2]

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?

The idea of original sin and the Fall is first found midrashwise among the Jews of Alexandria late in the 2nd century BCE, is mentioned once by Paul, but isn't part of early Christian practice. Not until Augustine of Hippo picks up the idea around 400 CE does it start to become popular, effectively a century or so after Constantine. So the tribulations of the early church are irrelevant.

As I've pointed out many times before, there is no fall of Man in the Genesis Garden story, no mention of sin, or original sin, or the fall of man, or death entering the world, or spiritual death, or the need for a redeemer. Not even once. God states [his] reasons for chucking Adam and Eve out of the Garden at Genesis 3:22-23 ─ to stop them eating from the tree of life and becoming immortal like [him]. This fear of competition is also God's motive for kicking down the tower of Babel.

So part of the snake-oil sales pitch here is that although Christians have no biblical basis for their practice beyond Paul's one-liner, for that they tell children that they're already doomed unless they buy the snake-oil.

We never taught our children any such thing. And they won't teach any such thing to grandchildren.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, and that Christians are happy to be submissive sheep submitting to an imaginary dictator in the skies.

Excepting that the God I've met is imaginary, yes. But you'll see when your knee bows as all shall. No longer will any be able to maintain over-the-top rebellious teenager facades once faced with that majesty.

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.

And as I said, false pride shall be banished.

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.

No where is it stated that God created them so that they would decide to eat the fruit. In fact the opposite is said.

Also, I'm pretty sure god tells them they "will surely die" if they eat the fruit, not that he will punish them

And they did. Sure as the sunrise, they were dead the moment they grabbed that fruit.

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."

Your point was that consequences being handed out when the person who is commanded doesn't understand how and why disobedience will lead to those consequences are immoral. You're avoiding the purpose of the analogy in your change so no, that is a much worse one.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

Possibly. I know that the Southern Baptist church I grew up in taught no such thing as original sin as guilt and neither the ancient Church taught nor the modern descendants of that Church teach any such thing.

 

[Moonjuice]

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

Dude, I’m being serious. I’m looking for the definition of “turn the other cheek. I know what I think it means, I just want to make sure we both agree before I answer your question. If the definition of “turn the other cheek” means “something like absolute Ahimsa”, then I’m going to have to ask what is absolute Ahimsa, having never heard that term or that word before, nor have I ever heard about a “Second gospel to be written”.

 

[McBell]

There has to be some objective standard or it's all gooblygook.

False dichotomy

But then, most every time someone claims "absolute" and or "objective" anything, they can only present it as a false dichotomy.

 

[Moonjuice]

However, most immorality isn't about following Christianity, it is about ignoring its precepts.

I’m specifically referring to a very important precept. I’m not ignoring it, just trying to understand how the concept can be moral. I mean, to expect two humans with no understanding of right or wrong, to not be fooled by the master of deception (Satan, aka talking snake) and then punish all of humanity when they fail the test. If that’s the only precept I knew, I’d call that total nonsense. I don’t know how to look at it any other way.

 

[Moonjuice]

I wouldn't call the idea immoral, or Christianity for that matter.
(In fact, only actions can be (im)moral, not ideas, ideologies, thoughts or people.)

So the real question is "Does being a Christian, i.e. believing as you described, lead to immoral actions?"

That is a great question, but no, that’s not the question I was posing. Specifically, is the act of vicarious redemption moral or immoral?

 

[Twilight Hue]

He's as real as the air you breathe, which I assume you believe to exist.
It's not just cerebral, it's spiritual.

No. It's nowhere like, nor near as real, as the air one breathes.

The reality of spirituality, if one really wants to know, is best illustrated by the firing of synapses and neurons in the brain the produce the concept of spirituality which in itself, has no actual substance of and in itself.

Molecules can be seen...

The first ever images of a molecule as it makes and breaks atomic bonds - ExtremeTech

There are air molecules such as solid oxygen.

Solid oxygen - Wikipedia

There are no spiritual molecules.

?

Where are they?

That's why it's a poor analogy to compare it with air which is tangible and physical.



.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are no spiritual molecules.

Why? Because you haven't seen them, yet?
To believe that the vast majority of humanity throughout the ages has been wrong to worship seems a little unrealistic. If we could see the human soul would you really accept that, or would you find a way to explain it away?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why? Because you haven't seen them, yet?
To believe that the vast majority of humanity throughout the ages has been wrong to worship seems a little unrealistic. If we could see the human soul would you really accept that, or would you find a way to explain it away?

I'd just try to explain it first. Supposing such a thing ever manifests.

That's the value of experimenting. To see if it's what one thinks it is, or if it's something different.

Until then, there is absolutely nothing to go on to even determine if a soul or whatever is even real at all, aside of course from just thinking something is real through one's thoughts and imagination.

Theists do have their work cut out for them apparently if they think it's somehow more than ones cerebral flights of fancy. As of now, that's all it actually is as it stands.

 

[firedragon]

Dude, I’m being serious. I’m looking for the definition of “turn the other cheek. I know what I think it means, I just want to make sure we both agree before I answer your question. If the definition of “turn the other cheek” means “something like absolute Ahimsa”, then I’m going to have to ask what is absolute Ahimsa, having never heard that term or that word before, nor have I ever heard about a “Second gospel to be written”.

Non-violence.
Mattew was the second gospel to be written.

 

[Heyo]

That is a great question, but no, that’s not the question I was posing. Specifically, is the act of vicarious redemption moral or immoral?

That greatly depends on the circumstances. At least it violates one (of my) moral principles: justice. It may also violate public well-being if a dangerous criminal walks free. But there could be mitigating factors, e.g. if the punishment itself is immoral.

 

[Colt]

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.

Yep, growing up in a moderate Christian household with nice parents, elements of the basic Christian story didn't make any since to me. We went to church sporadically during the winter months, mainly Sunday school, but my dad was a closet Urantia Book reader, I don't think he mentioned that in church! LoL!. So after having a spiritual awakening at 21 I began my search for more understanding. The UB is where I found an acceptable "explanation".

The Israelites wrote a revised version of their own history in Babylon after the fall of their sacred Temple and nation. The OT is their version of the meaning of events that they appropriated from ancient Mesopotamian lore. The OT contains much speculation and conjecture.

What's amazing is that the very real presence of God in the lives of believers trumps the inconsistency and errors of scripture stories. If you ask the average Christians most dont know or don't believe the OT as written and frankly don't care.

 

[viole]

And as I said, false pride shall be banished.

Exactly what a mafia boss would require from you. That is the moral level of the being you are worshipping.

and no, I will never bow to an entity that requires me to turn into a submissive sheep. I would much rather being destroyed, or whatever, that spend eternity with a bunch of sheep, bowing all the time to a deity with a serious ego problem.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Excepting that the God I've met is imaginary, yes.

Of course He is. He is as plausible as Pinocchio, while sharing the same evidence with him. Zero, basically.

You will see. Actually, you will not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'd just try to explain it first. Supposing such a thing ever manifests.

That's the value of experimenting. To see if it's what one thinks it is, or if it's something different.

Until then, there is absolutely nothing to go on to even determine if a soul or whatever is even real at all, aside of course from just thinking something is real through one's thoughts and imagination.

Theists do have their work cut out for them apparently if they think it's somehow more than ones cerebral flights of fancy. As of now, that's all it actually is as it stands.

Funny we believe in many things we don't see. You say we can see air, but I never have. I see it's effects just like I see the effects of God's existence everywhere.
It's really not that hard and most people get it. Athiests are a tiny minority.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Funny we believe in many things we don't see. You say we can see air, but I never have. I see it's effects just like I see the effects of God's existence everywhere.
It's really not that hard and most people get it. Athiests are a tiny minority.

No. Air is a tactile reality. It's clearly real, testable, and verified.

Spirituality and beliefs are not. It's completely conceptual and non existant apart from the thought itself.

It's a genuine wonder with all the implied power, omnipresence, and glory of God, it still to this day cannot even hold up to the same truth that a simple breeze makes.

 

[Moonjuice]

That greatly depends on the circumstances. At least it violates one (of my) moral principles: justice. It may also violate public well-being if a dangerous criminal walks free. But there could be mitigating factors, e.g. if the punishment itself is immoral.

I agree, Justice. How can it be considered "Just" for a criminal to not be punished, but an innocent man is allowed to serve the punishment for a crime he did not commit and that somehow absolves the criminal from any wrong doing? Allowing criminals to escape consequences of their own actions by punishing an innocent person is an unjust system.