Is Christianity Inherently Immoral?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

OK. Now explain how very, very well-educated Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States -- each and every one a Christian -- could decide 7-to-2, "that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them." And going further, likewise decide that owing humans was therefore constitutional throughout the United States, and once a slave is owned, has zero right to seek freedom?

That's Dred Scott. That judgement was written by extremely well-educated Christians. Apparently, the Christianity that they were educated to understand could not allow them to understand that owning other human beings is wrong.

Nor, by the way, could the "apostles teaching and fellowship." If that's the best that your "exegesis" can manage, then I'll take mine -- and go to hell like my prof (a Catholic priest) told me I would.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

OK. Now explain how very, very well-educated Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States -- each and every one a Christian -- could decide 7-to-2, "that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them." And going further, likewise decide that owing humans was therefore constitutional throughout the United States, and once a slave is owned, has zero right to seek freedom?

That's Dred Scott. That judgement was written by extremely well-educated Christians. Apparently, the Christianity that they were educated to understand could not allow them to understand that owning other human beings is wrong.

Nor, by the way, could the "apostles teaching and fellowship." If that's the best that your "exegesis" can manage, then I'll take mine -- and go to hell like my prof (a Catholic priest) told me I would.

And out of curiousity, the Chief Justice of the day, Roger B. Taney, still has his bust in the Capitol, in the room that used to be used for Supreme Court hearings before they got their own building. And he's the only one! And though legislators have tried to have it removed, Republicans have thwarted that every time.

 

[sojourner]

OK. Now explain how very, very well-educated Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States -- each and every one a Christian -- could decide 7-to-2, "that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them." And going further, likewise decide that owing humans was therefore constitutional throughout the United States, and once a slave is owned, has zero right to seek freedom?

That's Dred Scott. That judgement was written by extremely well-educated Christians. Apparently, the Christianity that they were educated to understand could not allow them to understand that owning other human beings is wrong.

Nor, by the way, could the "apostles teaching and fellowship." If that's the best that your "exegesis" can manage, then I'll take mine -- and go to hell like my prof (a Catholic priest) told me I would.

But you’re not bitter…

Look, people aren’t perfect — no matter who they are. As an old teacher of mine used to say: “So far as I know, there was only one man who was perfect, and they crucified him.” Additionally, no matter how excellent the exegesis, people still make mistakes. The exegetical process isn’t perfect — in fact never claims to be — but it’s a darn sight better than “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”

 

[sojourner]

And out of curiousity, the Chief Justice of the day, Roger B. Taney, still has his bust in the Capitol, in the room that used to be used for Supreme Court hearings before they got their own building. And he's the only one! And though legislators have tried to have it removed, Republicans have thwarted that every time.

Not germane to the exegetical process.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not germane to the exegetical process.

No, it was an afterthought -- but the Justices writing the Dred Scott decision were indeed doing a kind of exegesis, of the Constitution rather than the Bible. And that exegesis led to probably the worst decision in the history of SCOTUS. Because, as so often happens, they got out of their exegesis exactly what they wished to get.

 

[kjw47]

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.

You seem confused. The JW,s teach the whole bible to us. Every apostle who attended the Israelite places of worship--Served the true living God. Everyone of them was taught--a single being God. So was Jesus when he attended. They served the true living God.

 

[kjw47]

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....

He is clearing it up. The same way he did back then--Luke 10--Acts 20:20

 

[Brian2]

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.

The snake was punished and will also be punished again.
The natural instinct of humans is curiosity and desire for things they don't have even if they know it is wrong.

- 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.

God did not change His mind, He knew all along what He was going to do and it was to save us, not give us a chance to save ourselves. That option was always open for people and some have been righteous but most have not and even the righteous have done a lot of sinning.

-

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.

He sent His Son to become a man. Everyone had forfeited their lives because of sin but God's Son was perfect and did not sin and so He is the only one to gain eternal life on His merits. He has plenty of life to go around for anyone who wants it and so He gives it to those who want it and accept it.

-

- 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.

Imo the Bible does not teach that only Christians will be saved. There are parts of Christianity which teach that however but imo it is false.
We are worse than we realise as people and our anger and lust etc is comparable to rape and murder.

-

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

You give a parody straw man of Christianity but that is only what you have twisted it into since you left.

-

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.

We are saved from our own failings that deserve death because God could not let sinners live forever to do evil forever. When we are saved we get changed so we do not want to do that evil and eventually get changed into people who do not do evil, that would be after the resurrection when we are made perfect.

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.

It can be moral if it is the only way to save people that God did not have to save in the first place and only did it out of love even if it meant suffering for Him and His Son and the rest of us humans who go through hell until this age is wound up and the truth is revealed to everyone.
God's justice and mercy meet in what Jesus did and mercy is always possible at the judgement for those who have not accepted Jesus now, but it will be mercy because we all do the wrong things. But live life according to how Jesus said as much as you can and He will be on your side at the judgement imo.

 

[Moonjuice]

The snake was punished and will also be punished again.
The natural instinct of humans is curiosity and desire for things they don't have even if they know it is wrong.

Actually, he was already punished and thrown out of heaven by the time humans were created, according to Genesis. What I want to know is, why would god allow Satan into the "Garden of Eden" at all. According to the story, Satan fooled the poor humans who had no knowledge of good or evil. The entire fall of man event was created by the devil and allowed to happen by God himself. Then the humans and all their lineage are punished by God. What happened to Satan? Nothing that didn't already happen.

God did not change His mind, He knew all along what He was going to do and it was to save us, not give us a chance to save ourselves. That option was always open for people and some have been righteous but most have not and even the righteous have done a lot of sinning.

Save us from what? If salvation was his intention, he could have saved us from the talking snake right at the beginning. No talking snakes allowed in Eden, until humans learn how to think for themselves, then only those who have knowledge of right and wrong could be punished for doing wrong. End of story. No fall of man, no need for salvation or human sacrifices. Or, he could simply give Adam and Eve a chance for salvation the very next day with some new test of loyalty based on their new understanding of good and evil. Instead, thousands of years went by before he offered salvation to people who had nothing to do with the original crime. Lots of humans came and went without the opportunity of salvation.

We are worse than we realise as people and our anger and lust etc is comparable to rape and murder.

This is ridiculous. I feel really bad for people who have been convinced they are worthless. To think that a mental emotion like anger or "lust" is comparable to the act physically raping or murdering another human is just gross. Its really sad to see.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, he was already punished and thrown out of heaven by the time humans were created, according to Genesis. What I want to know is, why would god allow Satan into the "Garden of Eden" at all. According to the story, Satan fooled the poor humans who had no knowledge of good or evil. The entire fall of man event was created by the devil and allowed to happen by God himself. Then the humans and all their lineage are punished by God. What happened to Satan? Nothing that didn't already happen.

We don't know why Satan was in Eden but I don't think it was because he was kicked out of heaven already.

Save us from what? If salvation was his intention, he could have saved us from the talking snake right at the beginning. No talking snakes allowed in Eden, until humans learn how to think for themselves, then only those who have knowledge of right and wrong could be punished for doing wrong. End of story. No fall of man, no need for salvation or human sacrifices. Or, he could simply give Adam and Eve a chance for salvation the very next day with some new test of loyalty based on their new understanding of good and evil. Instead, thousands of years went by before he offered salvation to people who had nothing to do with the original crime. Lots of humans came and went without the opportunity of salvation.

Salvation is salvation from death, the consequences of sin.
Some say that it could have been God's intention all along for us to sin because God had a better plan for us than to be just good humans.
There is a lot that we don't know (or at least that I don't know) and in the meantime I give the benefit of the doubt to God.
All humans have the benefit of salvation if they choose it or have lived their lives well in God's sight.

This is ridiculous. I feel really bad for people who have been convinced they are worthless. To think that a mental emotion like anger or "lust" is comparable to the act physically raping or murdering another human is just gross. Its really sad to see.

I did not say we are worthless I was saying that our actions are worse than we think. Anger for no reason is akin to murder and lust is akin to adultery. They stem from the same place. Anger can lead to murder and lust to adultery.
In God's eyes we are valuable and worth the suffering and pain that Jesus went through for us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Is Christianity Inherently Immoral?": Christianity has the same social rules that any other religion has. It is no different, except in the first four of the Commandments, so I would not term it as immoral. That is the extent that I know about Christianity. But it is certainly does not talk truth or sense.