Is Christianity Inherently Immoral?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, after the latest revelations in Canada about those hundreds and hundreds of unmarked and unmourned graves of native children -- mostly in the "care" of the Catholic Church, and not so very long after the horrible scandals involving priests sexually abusing children of both sexes -- now we have a cabal of Bishops working away at trying to deprive President Biden of the rite of Communion. Not because he approves of abortion (he doesn't) but because he won't use his office to bludgeon the rest of the nation into submission.

Is the church really going to be willing to try to force its will on America by threatening to imperil Biden's "immortal soul?" You bloody bet you're butt they will!

Is the question posed in the thread answered yet? Or just for Catholicism, not the whole of Christianity?

 

[Moonjuice]

You have been taught error. Only those who repent( stop doing the sin) get forgiven( Acts 3:19) Jesus death only covers repented sin. So any regardless of their past can repent and be forgiven.
God did not come to earth. God sent another to the earth. The being speaking at Proverbs 8 is the one named Jesus as a mortal. The one who will subject himself to his God and Father after he hands the kingdom back.( 1Corinthians 15:24-28)
The problem with most who think they follow Jesus is that they listen to men with white collars over what Jesus actually teaches. A very serious error.

We are in agreement on two of the three points you made. Once again, you have pointed out that people who read and follow the bible obviously do not agree on how to read and follow the bible. AND whoever reads and follows the bible, is quite certain that everyone except those that agree with their particular interpretation are being taught in error. Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what Jesus taught? All we have to do is refer to the book he wrote...oh, we can't do that. He never wrote anything! As far as we know, he didn't know how to write, in any language. The good news is, he is real, he's not dead and he exists, so let's just ask him to clear it up right now...oh wait, that doesn't work either! Wish there was a way for an all powerful being to bring and end to all this confusion among his followers....

 

[sojourner]

Your take is supported by your interpretation, is it not? To me, unless its the same way I interpret it, then your take is demonstrably underinformed. We can do this all day and we are both right to do so. It sure would be nice if there was only one way to interpret it.

It sure would. However, it’s not simply a matter of “my take vs. your take.” Interpretations are informed by an exegetical process that is either honest and thorough, or not. Frankly, your OP had theological holes that were indicative of not having availed yourself of either exegetics or of an informed hermeneutic of theological development. If you’d like, I’d be happy to pick apart the OP bit by bit.

 

[sojourner]

Once again, you have pointed out that people who read and follow the bible obviously do not agree on how to read and follow the bible. AND whoever reads and follows the bible, is quite certain that everyone except those that agree with their particular interpretation are being taught in error

Not quite true. The Bible is, by nature, multivalent and supports a multiplicity of valid interpretations, some better than others. For example, one can make a valid interpretation for Substitutionary Atonement. It’s not “wrong,” but I don’t subscribe to it; I think there are better soteriological interpretations. That being said, all valid interpretations are derived from a proper exegetical process.

All we have to do is refer to the book he wrote

Not quite. This is really where your theological ground is shaky. The Bible was never meant to be the sole repository of Jesus’ teachings. That stance is a heresy that came about only after the first 1500 years of the church’s existence. The Apostles taught the faith. The Bible was just one vehicle for doing that, but not the only one.

 

[sojourner]

The problem with most who think they follow Jesus is that they listen to men with white collars over what Jesus actually teaches. A very serious error.

The problem with most JWs who think they follow Jesus is that they listen to men from Watchtower over what the Apostles teach. A very serious error.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not quite true. The Bible is, by nature, multivalent and supports a multiplicity of valid interpretations, some better than others. For example, one can make a valid interpretation for Substitutionary Atonement. It’s not “wrong,” but I don’t subscribe to it; I think there are better soteriological interpretations. That being said, all valid interpretations are derived from a proper exegetical process.

I would love to see you explain that more fully. I mean what, exactly, if a "valid exegetical process?" (I had a priest/professor rate a piece I wrote for him in university "a brilliant piece of exegesis -- but you are going to Hell.")

And how can two interpretations be "valid," and yet totally contradict one another? And more to the point, if that is possible, how the heck can anybody make sense of texts that permit that kind of "multivalence?"

 

[ajay0]

That is certainly a really nice way to look at it. However, if never ending happiness or suffering are at stake, understanding what is actually true is definitely worth breaking your head over.

From the Dharmik pov, there is no never ending suffering though there is never ending happiness present now itself. Yes, there is suffering , but it is just to point out the truth that we need to cut down on our strong desires in the form of cravings and aversions that create suffering, and focus on our legitimate needs instead.

Not only do we need to know what is true, vs what is metaphorical, we need to understand the correct way to interpret everything in the Bible - or we could be led astray by simply not understanding the correct method for picking out the facts. If picking out the good parts is the best way to follow it, I’m not sure if it’s worthy to be followed. There’s good parts to pick out of every religion and good parts to pick out of the worldview of those who have no supernatural beliefs at all.

See, the bible at present has been heavily editted in the councils of constantinople and nicea by the romans The romans finally accepted christianity after centuries of brutal persecution of the christians, but they editted it to suit their sensibiities and declared all other versions heretical.

So the Bible is just the compilation of the parts cherry picked by the romans to suit their own vision and philosophy of life. And the romans were adept in military, administration and political science but were not proficient in religious culture and philosophy. Many festivals like christmas were originally roman pagan festivals.

So obviously the bible cannot be seen as an accurate account of what Jesus originally taught.

All these should be taken into account if you are seeking to 'understand the correct way to interpret everything in the Bible'.

 

[sojourner]

I would love to see you explain that more fully. I mean what, exactly, if a "valid exegetical process?" (I had a priest/professor rate a piece I wrote for him in university "a brilliant piece of exegesis -- but you are going to Hell.")

And how can two interpretations be "valid," and yet totally contradict one another? And more to the point, if that is possible, how the heck can anybody make sense of texts that permit that kind of "multivalence?"

I’d love to answer those questions. I’ve got to get to work though right now. Either bump this post later or pm me to remind me; I’ll likely forget.

 

[Moonjuice]

It sure would. However, it’s not simply a matter of “my take vs. your take.” Interpretations are informed by an process that is either honest and thorough, or not. Frankly, your OP had theological holes that were indicative of not having availed yourself of either exegetics or of an informed hermeneutic of theological development. If you’d like, I’d be happy to pick apart the OP bit by bit.

Have we just entered the Twilight Zone or am I being Punked?
You say its not simply a matter of "my take vs. your take", then immediately inform me that one interpretation (your take) is honest and thorough, and others (my take) are not. Then you offer to pick apart my poor interpretation, with your more honest and informed hermeneutic interpretation, which is the correct one. You accidently, yet perfectly supported a point you were trying to dismiss, you just said it with a little more vocabulary pizzazz. Which is a tactic that I think is most often used in public forums by people trying to make their opinion look more advanced and nuanced.

All you actually said was, my interpretation is correct and yours is not and I'd be happy to show you - but this is not about the fact that the text is interpreted differently, and everyone thinks their take is the correct interpretation. Pretty funny.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Morality depends on you feelings.

Say you had amassed a huge financial debt, student loans or something. This is a burden on you that you can see no way freeing yourself from.

So you dad comes along, who loaded with money. He takes care of your debt. Frees you from it. It's not a burden to him but he had no obligation to take care of it for you. He did it just because he loved you.

Some may feel happy and grateful to be free of the burden. Someone else may feel guilty that even though it wasn't a burden to their dad, they did fulfill the obligation themselves. May even be angry from the guilt they now feel because of their dad's action.

Freeing you from your debt, a moral action? Making you feel guilty, immoral?

 

[Moonjuice]

Morality depends on you feelings.

Say you had amassed a huge financial debt, student loans or something. This is a burden on you that you can see no way freeing yourself from.

So you dad comes along, who loaded with money. He takes care of your debt. Frees you from it. It's not a burden to him but he had no obligation to take care of it for you. He did it just because he loved you.

Some may feel happy and grateful to be free of the burden. Someone else may feel guilty that even though it wasn't a burden to their dad, they did fulfill the obligation themselves. May even be angry from the guilt they now feel because of their dad's action.

Freeing you from your debt, a moral action? Making you feel guilty, immoral?

Sorry, I don't think the concept of volunteering to be murdered, because the judge (which is you) made a rule that death is required in order to be excused, is the same thing as paying a bill for someone who does not have enough money to pay the bill themselves. It's not even close to the same moral concept. You have 1 life, for your entire life. You do not have $1 for your entire life. Giving up your existence on earth, is not the same as giving $1 to another person while you are both alive. Or, as the late, great, Jules Winnfield said. "It's not even the same sport!".

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, I don't think the concept of volunteering to be murdered, because the judge (which is you) made a rule that death is required in order to be excused, is the same thing as paying a bill for someone who does not have enough money to pay the bill themselves. It's not even close to the same moral concept. You have 1 life, for your entire life. You do not have $1 for your entire life. Giving up your exitance on earth, is not the same as giving $1 to another person while you are both alive. Or, as the late, great, Jules Winnfield said. "It's not even the same sport!".

God, the concept of God has abundant life. Murdered is a nice emotional word but one cannot volunteer to be murdered. God pays a life, so what? "God" has infinite life.
You from your limited perspective, one life is everything. For God, there is plenty more from where it came from.

You throw a emotional word in your argument and OMG it horrible but actually the word doesn't even apply.

 

[sojourner]

Have we just entered the Twilight Zone or am I being Punked?
You say its not simply a matter of "my take vs. your take", then immediately inform me that one interpretation (your take) is honest and thorough, and others (my take) are not. Then you offer to pick apart my poor interpretation, with your more honest and informed hermeneutic interpretation, which is the correct one. You accidently, yet perfectly supported a point you were trying to dismiss, you just said it with a little more vocabulary pizzazz. Which is a tactic that I think is most often used in public forums by people trying to make their opinion look more advanced and nuanced.

All you actually said was, my interpretation is correct and yours is not and I'd be happy to show you - but this is not about the fact that the text is interpreted differently, and everyone thinks their take is the correct interpretation. Pretty funny.

It’s not so much a matter of “correct” or “incorrect.” That suggests an either/or approach, and that’s not “how It Works.” I didn’t say your take was “incorrect.” I said it seemed underinformed.

 

[Moonjuice]

God, the concept of God has abundant life. Murdered is a nice emotional word but one cannot volunteer to be murdered. God pays a life, so what? "God" has infinite life.
You from your limited perspective, one life is everything. For God, there is plenty more from where it came from.

You throw a emotional word in your argument and OMG it horrible but actually the word doesn't even apply.

I think being executed for a crime you did not commit is murder. It's not a justified killing, so its murder. Why don't you call it murder? If Abraham was able to murder his son Isaac as God instructed him to do, how would you describe that? As a murder, or as a beautiful example of devotion? If you are speaking in biblical terms, its an example of the level of devotion all Christians should aspire to reach. In the real world, we call this murder. And, murdering your own children, we consider a particularly heinous murder because you cannot love someone and do the worst possible thing you can do to a person, murder them. But if you are God, sacrificing your own child (which is really you) is not OMG horrible, it is in fact a good thing.

Do you think Jesus is God? If not, then this discussion won't make any sense. If you do, then perhaps you will see the dilemma.

I agree that you can't volunteer to be murdered, which is one of the reasons I am giving to explain why the narrative could be considered immoral. I agree that the narrative doesn't say God just "paid a life". Evidently, he pretended to pay his OWN LIFE, to cover a debt owed to HIMSELF or he pretended to offer his own son to cover a debt for other peoples crimes. This is vicarious redemption. . Either way, there is a huge difference. Paying a strangers life, or punishing an innocent person for someone else crime is a ridiculously immoral concept. However, paying your own life, because you are holding yourself accountable for the crimes of other people, is really nonsensical. And paying offering your childs life, for crimes other people committed is just evil in any other context.

 

[Moonjuice]

It’s not so much a matter of “correct” or “incorrect.” That suggests an either/or approach, and that’s not “how It Works.” I didn’t say your take was “incorrect.” I said it seemed underinformed.

And you are prepared to take on the challenge of informing me fully. Semantics?

 

[sojourner]

I would love to see you explain that more fully. I mean what, exactly, if a "valid exegetical process?" (I had a priest/professor rate a piece I wrote for him in university "a brilliant piece of exegesis -- but you are going to Hell.")

And how can two interpretations be "valid," and yet totally contradict one another? And more to the point, if that is possible, how the heck can anybody make sense of texts that permit that kind of "multivalence?"

A valid exegetical approach attempts to read out of the text what’s there, divesting the reader of biased “lenses.” Exegesis does this through discovering, as much as it is possible, the author and the intended audience, taking under consideration the original language of the text under question, and attempting to answer pertinent questions regarding cultural, social, historic, and theological perspectives in which the text was written. Further, the process involves discovering (again, as well as we can) whether the text has been edited — either enlarged upon or truncated, or whether it’s a “pure” text. Then, other considerations are entertained, such as, does the text stand alone, or does it have a multiple attestation in other texts?

An exegesis attempts to put the text into a “sterile” environment such that it stands alone, apart from expectations, biases, and beliefs.

A professor should never assign a judgment to an exegesis, such as yours did. It’s not about orthodoxy, it’s about what the text actually says. Constructing a theology from the exegesis is a different process and comes later.

Two interpretations can be valid, provided they’re derived from such an exegesis. This isn’t math. It’s about perspective. We have to realize, when dealing with Biblical texts, that we’re only dealing with one facet of a cut diamond. The Bible is limited with regard to the hard facts it presents. But it is rich in imaginative imagery. It’s a collection of myth — not a collection of news reporting and fact-finding. The Bible doesn’t “give us answers,” so much as it “prompts questions.” And it does that very well.

 

[sojourner]

And you are prepared to take on the challenge of informing me fully. Semantics?

I can show you where I think you go off the rails theologically, if you’re interested.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A valid exegetical approach attempts to read out of the text what’s there, divesting the reader of biased “lenses.” Exegesis does this through discovering, as much as it is possible, the author and the intended audience, taking under consideration the original language of the text under question, and attempting to answer pertinent questions regarding cultural, social, historic, and theological perspectives in which the text was written. Further, the process involves discovering (again, as well as we can) whether the text has been edited — either enlarged upon or truncated, or whether it’s a “pure” text. Then, other considerations are entertained, such as, does the text stand alone, or does it have a multiple attestation in other texts?

An exegesis attempts to put the text into a “sterile” environment such that it stands alone, apart from expectations, biases, and beliefs.

A professor should never assign a judgment to an exegesis, such as yours did. It’s not about orthodoxy, it’s about what the text actually says. Constructing a theology from the exegesis is a different process and comes later.

Two interpretations can be valid, provided they’re derived from such an exegesis. This isn’t math. It’s about perspective. We have to realize, when dealing with Biblical texts, that we’re only dealing with one facet of a cut diamond. The Bible is limited with regard to the hard facts it presents. But it is rich in imaginative imagery. It’s a collection of myth — not a collection of news reporting and fact-finding. The Bible doesn’t “give us answers,” so much as it “prompts questions.” And it does that very well.

Now, re-reading what you wrote, would you say that the everyday, ordinary Christian, usually with considerably less than a university education, rather a paucity of familiarity with ancient languages, and so on, can do for themselves? And with only an hour or so to spare once a week to spend in religious thought?

Really?

 

[Nakosis]

I think being executed for a crime you did not commit is murder. It's not a justified killing, so its murder. Why don't you call it murder?

Because it was voluntary.

If Abraham was able to murder his son Isaac as God instructed him to do, how would you describe that? As a murder, or as a beautiful example of devotion? If you are speaking in biblical terms, its an example of the level of devotion all Christians should aspire to reach. In the real world, we call this murder. And, murdering your own children, we consider a particularly heinous murder because you cannot love someone and do the worst possible thing you can do to a person, murder them. But if you are God, sacrificing your own child (which is really you) is not OMG horrible, it is in fact a good thing.

My comment was wrt vicarious redemption. My argument is that morality is based on feelings, not biblical stories. However I thing the story of Isaac tries to set the idea that God has the ultimate claim to one's life. Yours, your children, your neighbors. If one wants to be a Christian or Jew, they have to accept this as fact.

Do you think Jesus is God? If not, then this discussion won't make any sense. If you do, then perhaps you will see the dilemma.

Whether you see Jesus as God or not, I don't see he sacrificed anything. His death was symbolic for taking on a debt since he didn't really die. Jesus could be anybody. You give your life to God and you trust God will give you everything. Life holds relative insignificance in the face of everything. Maybe not for me or you but if this is what you believe. Nothing is really lost and everything is gained.

I agree that you can't volunteer to be murdered, which is one of the reasons I am giving to explain why the narrative could be considered immoral. I agree that the narrative doesn't say God just "paid a life". Evidently, he pretended to pay his OWN LIFE, to cover a debt owed to HIMSELF or he pretended to offer his own son to cover a debt for other peoples crimes. This is vicarious redemption. . Either way, there is a huge difference. Paying a strangers life, or punishing an innocent person for someone else crime is a ridiculously immoral concept. However, paying your own life, because you are holding yourself accountable for the crimes of other people, is really nonsensical. And paying offering your childs life, for crimes other people committed is just evil in any other context.

"For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it."

I'm not saying you have to accept this. It is a basic tenant of Christianity though. It is a fundamental message of the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Now, re-reading what you wrote, would you say that the everyday, ordinary Christian, usually with considerably less than a university education, rather a paucity of familiarity with ancient languages, and so on, can do for themselves? And with only an hour or so to spare once a week to spend in religious thought?

Really?

That’s why the church relies on what the NT refers to as “the apostles’ teaching and fellowship.”