Any Christians Up For Some Debate?

[Panther]

That's fine. I call myself Christian because I use the example of Christ. His deity or not doesn't really have much bearing on my beliefs. Silly sounding I know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

BigToe, I wish more christians were like you...easy going.

Definitely refreshing to see.

:wink:

 

Lisa

[BigToe]

HAHA Panther- you and me both!

[Guest Ex-monkey]

hello Asimov

[NorthenSun]

what is it about jesus u like? I have trouble finding any good, as a god he's a monster, but as a personality, removed from the theological nonsense, free of the threats, promises and mind control mechanisms that have casued so many to destroy in his name, what is there that is positive? I'd like your examples, Don't worry i'm not after a debate, ive learnt that theists

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

AUB, I agree with you that numerous evil acts have been conducted throughout history by Christians, but I don't think you make a rational or helpful argument when you say that there is nothing good about Jesus. Scitsofreaky bought up the example of Jefferson, and indeed he did create his own Bible by cutting out the parts he thought were religious dogma and keeping the passages he thought were ethically valuable. I think there are many positive examples in the teachings of Jesus. Therefore I think that simply ranting to the effect the "Christianity is totally evil" is not very logical and of dubious value in enlightening people about the anti-religious viewpoint.

 

Even BigToe seems to be able to separate some of the wheat from the chafe.

[Asimov]

hello Asimov

 

 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!!!!

 

It's Pauly! How ya doin, you crazy Christian?

[Asimov]

Ok, so Paul. Could you please outline the TAG for me? I'd like a little more info on it.

[chefranden]

Ok, so Paul.  Could you please outline the TAG for me?  I'd like a little more info on it.

 

 

No -- it will drive you beserk! In essense you will be told I'm right because I'm right. When you point out that that is no argument, you will be told I'm right because I'm right. That will go on and on and on until you droole. You don't like to droole do you?

[- AUB -]

NorthenSun I can understand your reaction to my statements, that is what i wanted, i don't soap box without an excuse, thank you for giving me one.

 

I'll begin with a dissection, nothing personal, i just need to show my conclusions are justified, as they are so easily miss understood, what follows is a common position in empirical ethics.

 

AUB, I agree with you that numerous evil acts have been conducted throughout history by Christians,

 

no kidding. The question is why?

 

 

but I don't think you make a rational or helpful argument when you say that there is nothing good about Jesus.

 

If I demonstrate it is a rational position then it should be helpful, I was not making an argument, just stating a position, (and asking a question) it is the conclusion to a rational process of thought, because I do not include the steps to the conclusion does not mean it is not rational. Besides I never said there was nothing good about Jesus, but I fail to see anything good in him, as every example of virtue that Christians claim he displays is countered by other examples of his behaviour, (thusly making him an unfit role model), but also by the inherent immorality of Christian doctrine itself. I was hoping for a list of considered examples of his goodness, so I could demonstrate this phenomenon, instead I have to argue for the conclusion based on your objection, still better than nothing. That is how you start a debate, you state a position and knock down any opposing arguments.

 

 

Scitsofreaky bought up the example of Jefferson, and indeed he did create his own Bible by cutting out the parts he thought were religious dogma and keeping the passages he thought were ethically valuable.

 

The problem with this argument is that what Jefferson was left with was not Christianity in any way, shape or form. You could quite as easily cut all the negative parts out Mein Kampf, and claim to have a ethical version of Nazism, it proves nothing as it is the effects and doctrine that defines the ethical nature of a religion or ideology. Not I'm afraid extremely selective "quote mining" as that proves nothing and is often used by Theists to try to undermine atheism or science, and if it is a tactic they choose to employ, then chances are that it's fallacial.

 

Good Christians often have to rely on this in order to justify their beliefs, that does not make a religion good or useful, as there are plenty of bad Christians who find far more immoral quotes for their purposes, this cancels out any good faiths do and is not representative. There are exceptions to every rule, but Oscar Schindler does not cast a positive reflection on Nazism, his actions were in spite of its nature not because of it. If a Christian acts in a objectively good manner, htey defy more of their faiths principles than obey. (sure, you could find passages in the Gospels that could in isolation and in a vacuum be considered "good" but only by removing it from the overall immoral context, and interpreting it by the standards of post Christian values). Most Christians interpreting the reference to giving a beggar your clothes say it's metaphor for charity, or non materialism, but back then it was considered a literal example of a communistic economic structure, and as, as communism is considered inherently wrong by all Christians, they are contradicting their own Jesus and his few "good" teachings. (just read Acts)

 

All in all by the time you pick apart the whole mess, there is nothing good left out of anything Jesus ever did or said, we could quite easily have done without the last 2 thousands years of Christian history, and be just as moral, if not more so today, and be without the terrible legacy of Christian history. I judge things by the general effect, not by their exceptions, and by that standard mankind would have been better off without Jesus, as with all religious figureheads. We have learned no science from them (but from the "pagan" greeks and babylonians), no morality (all western liberal values are epicurian or cynic), and no necessary elements of civilisation (western democracy, legal rights, equality, where greek, roman and saxon inventions).

 

In my country many consider Christianity to have been a complete waste of time, and get annoyed when Christians try to convert by selectively quoting the better elements of Jesus' teachings. (Especially as they are not essential elements of the faith, but largely window dressing). It is possible to be Christian and ignore them. Salvation comes from faith not by deeds or following Jesus's example. Indeed when Christianity started, Paul did not give us any details of Jesus teachings or deeds to go by, he regarded them as irrelevant (well actually they hadn't been made up yet). What mattered was the mindset of the cult, and its focus of worship. Jesus's supposed words are later editions, peripheral and very little to do with what Christianity really is, how many Christians really pay attention to them? They were just stolen quotes used for padding, but they have become the justification for the religion used when confronting secular values and by liberal xtians who cannot stomach Christianity's reality and 90% of the bible. In social and historical terms jesus has gone from an authoritarian despot used to justify monarchical tyrannies for the last 1500 years, to a left wing psudo socialist teacher on par with Buddha and Gandhi, Buddha may have existed, Gandhi definitely did, Jesus didn't and his teachings are other peoples, as far as I'm concerned there is no comparison, and it's an insult to those other great people.

 

 

Jesus' nature preceded his teachings, some of these modern xtians who to try to portray him as a historical teacher, rather than a god, are going against the very purpose of their faith. From day 1 he was a saviour, not a role model. In order to be a Christian you must do more than just agree with some of the things he said. (such people are neither a reflection of xtianity or the composite we call jesus, just certain plagiarised ideas, common to all philosophies) You must believe xtian doctrine and theology, and as these are inherently immoral, you lose far more than you gain, and the decency is swallowed up by a faith that always puts dogma before ethics. Humanists with a jesus fixation is what "nice" xtians are, neither the majority of xtians who have ever lived nor its founders would view them otherwise. Jesus said good things, but no good can come of them, without one being entirely secular, and in the habit of quoting him the way we do McCabe or Asimov. But only Christians ever quote Jesus, as compared to the works of greater men, nothing he said is worth repeating, true wisdom lies in the questioning of Socrates or the rational poetry of Ingersoll, not in trite and redundant values that everybody already shares, and had been better put my earlier sages, even Jesus admitted his parables were confusing, (actually just later apologist spin but never mind)

 

If you've a book that preaches brotherly love with one side of its mouth and and genocide in the other, then we would judge it by its more devastating effects, not by its largely irrelevant and inconsistent decency. If the man gives large amounts of money to charity but tortures children in his basement, it is not his charity activities that the newspapers, society or the police will focus on, he'll just be seen as hypocritical or inconsistent, but not in any way good. The good he did would hardly have been considered a worthwhile "trade-off" any more than Bin Larden's contribution to beard awareness or polemcs on the rights of Palestinians makes up for 9/11.

 

This is about balance, if Jesus wanders around saying you should be nice to all people, (but if you don't worship him you'll be tortured forever) and at the same time spouts anti-Semitic bile, that will cost millions of Jewish lives, then I do not consider him good in any way, nor his "good" teachings particularly symptomatic of his overall personality. When I read his words and deeds I do not assume that everyone will look at only the good examples and ignore the bad, I take it all into consideration, I am well aware that there are plenty of salad bar Christians out there, but as they ignore most of the Bible and Christian doctrine, especially its moral implications which is why many dis-believe in hell, they cannot be considered Christian either by the more fundamental breed or by myself, as most of their values are a product of a post Enlightenment society. Jesus sometimes just matches these standards, if you ignore his supposed nature, his old Testament references and his hypocrisy and lies, just like Protestants do with Martin Luther the Renaissance Hitler. It is a testament to their power of selective observation, not their ethics, honesty or reasoning powers.

 

It is inherently dangerous to use such a person as a source for good ideas, when so much around these ideas are the causes and motivations for the world's worst atrocities. The point I am making is that Jesus was not a good person, (but a figurehead with words put into his mouth by ideological zealots with conflicting agendas), and his teachings, especially considering that they were merely stolen from first century rabbinical tracts, are nothing more than token examples of self righteousness, used to foster a personality cult and sympathy for his (alleged) death. Most of which have been most entirely ignored by most Christians and their churches for the last 1700 years.

 

The cross was a symbol of conquest, with the sword it's greatest tool, Jesus was just a name, a brand, a authority and source of justification. Tyrants used him to rule absolutely, priests to persecute, and all the while a few naive and blind idiots thought all Christianity amounted to was love thy neighbour and pay your taxes, while the popes and Cardinal's murdered millions around the world, just as many Christians today who live in this fantasy world are ignoring reality, as their spiritual predecessors did all through the church's centuries of dominion. There may have been equally great evils in the interval, but it is Christianity that threatens the future of Western civilisation now, not Nazism or communism.

 

It has survived. It has great power, a history that should worry any reasonable human being, and intentions that should worry them even more. Xtians see a teacher, I see a logo akin to the swastika or hammer and sickle, that is all he ultimately is, and has amounted to for the majority of Christianity's existence. His sigil went before armies, from the Crusaders to the conquistadors, from the Spanish Armada to the disease and corruption spreading missionaries, a symbolic reminder of suffering, to cause even more. History is the result, these are the conclusions. No amount of myopic quotes and demands for sympathy for a man who never existed can change the facts.

 

 

I think there are many positive examples in the teachings of Jesus.

 

And many bad ones. What guarantee do we have that the positive ones will be chosen by all the xtian's and their leaders? None, and there is every indication that most of them will ignore the positive or choose the negative. Hitler revitalised the German economy, and restored national pride, but that is not his epitaph. The best all Christian decency amounts to is too little too late. You think it can rule another 2000 years without repeating even half its horrors? Then your optimism knows no bounds. We need to be blunt and factual about what Jesus was, or our children will wish we had.

 

 

Therefore I think that simply ranting to the effect the "Christianity is totally evil" is not very logical

 

Inherently immoral, not totally evil. I'm a rationalist and don't need theistic histrionics and grammatical melodrama.

 

Logic determines the truth of a conclusion by examining the premises and the interpolations leading up to it.

If what I'm saying is illogical, demonstrate it, don't use a loose meaning of a word I take more seriously than you do.

 

I will break it down into a rough logically falsifiable statement. The following has various presuppositions that should be considered acceptable by most rational people here. xtians will object to many of them, that their opinion is irrelevant, by being xtian they disqualify themselves from any right to use logic. The remaining premises can be backed up by further reasoning, evidence and logic, others here may wish to provide some that it, but the rest assured the evidence is there to be found. These premises are the result of other essays, and can be expanded upon if requested. So if you think you see an unqualified assumption, merely ask for a explanation, don't demand its dismissal.

 

 

 

 

Christians are by definition anyone who fits the primary or first criteria. (salvation from sin through baptism, surrender to jesus/god yada yada, you know what i mean)

 

Those who meet this criteria are believers and followers of Christian doctrine. (those who arn't but still use the term "xtian" logic removes)

 

Christian doctrine is diametrically opposed to the real (empirical) nature of human existence, and denies the possibility of morality being inherant. (if you dismiss original sin and except objective morality you agree with this, if not I'll explain in greater detail)

 

It's ethical "values" rest on authoritarian and arbitary "standards", that are relativistic and non-existent. (the nonexistence of God, and therefore lack of any objective source for their morality, is demonstrated in the inconsistency of xtian ethics)

 

As humanity is objective along with the causes and effects of its actions, then morality is objective and can be proven so, any arguments to the contrary that is disproven should not be argued for, those who do so lose all credibility.

 

Arguing for a meaningless and disproven moral standard, at the cost of proven and reliable ones can be argued to be immoral, as it is immoral to take away people's capacity to be ethical, (heaven and hell negates genuine altuistic or moral motives, as do blind adherence to authority. They prevent selfless and altuistic deeds done on no one's orders, threats or promises. (who is more moral, a man who would save a drowning child if you offer him £1 million, or one who would do so after you simply show him the situation).

 

The most immoral thing one can do is destroy morality itself, not as a concept or reality, but as a motivation and self evident and inherently justified standard. Take away humanity's capacity to be moral (in the minds of believers), by denying them the chance to be truly altuistic, and insisting that they need a metaphysical corrot and stick, goes against our nature and the interests of morality has a independent human concern. Logic simply dictates this is false, but if objective morality is considered correct them by that standard such ideological conditioning is opposed to morality, regardless of peripheral elements. (i.e. those "good" teachings)

 

 

Conclusion, Christianity is inherently immoral,

 

and xtians themselves are rendered amoral as they lack the ability to act morally or comprehend morality's existence, but use the term to describe immoral dictates. They act immorally for amoral motives.

 

 

 

 

If Jesus was a real historical figure who created this situation, he was the biggest monster of all time. Facts dictate however that this was result of converging goals and theologies by blind and cynical men, that could not have combined in a worse manner.

 

 

and of dubious value in enlightening people about the anti-religious viewpoint.

 

The value is to be gauged from the results, not your objection to my opinions, the methods had not yet been utilised.

Through education and demonstration, such values will be ascertained, that is what I'm doing.

 

Even BigToe seems to be able to separate some of the wheat from the chafe.

 

What she can do is largely irrelevant, Christianity has been unable to do so for hundreds of years, and most Christians still can't. And even if they could they are not obeying Christian doctrine of being true to its ideology, nor even its purpose, spiritual salvation not a compassionate society has always been the primary goal of this faith, the rest is cosmetic, like rouge on a cancer. And besides such a separation is arbitrary and subjective, open to interpretation, opinion, and likely to multiply the various divisions and inconsistencies of the Christian faith, which will most likely amount to a greater degree of harm then good. A subjective value system based on a subjective value system, to an objectivist this is only making matters worse. Again on balance, the general trend is what matters not the exceptions. My statements are not universal absolutes. When Joseph McCabe after spending decades studying the entire results of Catholicism concluded that in general it was immoral, he did not mean that there was not a single Christian who ever did good, but that it was bollocks.

[Asimov]

No -- it will drive you beserk!  In essense you will be told I'm right because I'm right.  When you point out that that is no argument,  you will be told I'm right because I'm right.  That will go on and on and on until you droole.  You don't like to droole do you?

 

Not unless it's due to ogling the ladies in the clubroom...

[scitsofreaky]

If Jesus was a real historical figure who created this situation, he was the biggest monster of all time. Facts dictate however that this was result of converging goals and theologies by blind and cynical men, that could not have combined in a worse manner.

If Jesus did exist, which I am not too sure of, I highly doubt he was much like the person described in the bible. Undoubtedly, his words and deeds have been manipulated, to say the least, to meet the goals of the said cynical men. So, the real question is not if Jesus was moral, but if the Jesus in the Bible is moral.

Well, I doubt this really added to the discussion. Meh.

[- AUB -]

If Jesus did exist,

 

No reason to think so, maybe there was a obscure massiah wanabe but there's nothing to tell, so to all intents and purposes jesus is the NT character, these's no historical or "real" one, but an idea wrapped around an agenda coverered in polemical rants by a american TV comedy style commitee of hacks, who ignored, ripped off or contradicted each other.

 

There is no single jesus in the NT, just a name to use for a writers ideas, be they Mats messainic fire n brimstoner, luke's gentle greekish philosopher or john's gnostic loon, all have their problems, but they cant be combined into a consistant character, as there're too many contraditions, i dislike mats jesus the most, but paul's is too cultish as well.

 

but if the Jesus in the Bible is moral.

 

Take it as given that's what i mean.

 

A cult of personality is more a control mechanism, than an actual example of that personality, it may sway and convince, but its the repetition, authority, social pressures and emotionalism that counts, not jesus himself. It wasnt his teachings that started the crusades but a popes speach. The institution xtianity created using jesus is what makes the impact on humanity, he could have taught anything, no differance would have resulted, tryanny does as tryanny is.

[BigToe]

Glad to know I can't be Christian because I don't fit your definition. I feel like I'm reading what a fundy is saying. Heh, oh well, I don't really care.

 

But I fail to see how it is logical to assume that a complex worldview can be simply moral or immoral. I don't think it is either.

 

And sure, maybe what I believe doesn't fit the original purpose, but I doubt that either of us know it's original purpose. But I also don't think any modern person follows the original ideology, whatever it was 1900 years ago.

 

So I suppose I agree that I'm not fitting its original purpose. But I also think no one can be perfectly logical or skeptical. Just as no one's beliefs can be infallible.

[- AUB -]

Glad to know I can't be Christian because I don't fit your definition. I feel like I'm reading what a fundy is saying. Heh, oh well, I don't really care.

 

No offence BT ( I find it ironic I agree with fundys as well, but they have a point) but logic does not tolerate vague categorisations, if we considered Christianity to include anybody who vaguely likes some of Jesus's teachings we'd have no practical definition at all. I was discussing the moral status of Christian doctrine, to that end I had to exclude those who do not believe or agree with it. You may consider yourself a Christian if you like, and my condemnation of the faith will not apply to you.

 

But I fail to see how it is logical to assume that a complex worldview can be simply moral or immoral. I don't think it is either.

 

Its many appear to be a false dichotomy, but I was not excluding any possibility, there are many grey areas in matters of religion, but if analysed from the stark moral perspective of objectivity, then by fostering a dependency on authority for values, and discrediting morality itself, I would claim that this is the height of immorality. If preventing millions of people from acting morally is not immoral, then nothing is. We are talking about the specific elements of Christian doctrine, not the religion in all its intricacies, the essential elements that are at the heart of Christian doctrine from the very beginning. We all know what they are, I'm merely demonstrating that they are responsible for Christianity's crimes, and are a reflection on the religion itself, rather than entirely on the xtian criminals.

 

This is a doctrinal issue, an analysis of the moral impact of Christian theology, it is a worldview, a perspective of life and humanity, a decree concerning man's relationship with a deity, and the metaphysical extensions of our lives. They are simple to break down, and they all result in damaging the minds of its adherents, every single one of these aspects are dangerous and flawed, together they are conclusively immoral. Very few philosophies or religions can truly be defined in such stark moral terms, and I understand your objection, but I see no flaw in my reasoning, and it is a common attitude expressed in less specific terms, among many freethinkers over many centuries.

 

Christian doctrine has a overwhelmingly negative effect on the human race, I've given my moral and logical reasons for this opinion, as well as historical examples, you may object on principle, but there is no assumption here, and complexity does not imply moral neutrality. Presuppositionalist arguments are complex, but still a load of dishonest crap. If morality is to be based on empirical fact, and acknowledged as deriving from inherent cognitive functions, then xtian doctrine being the opposite of this is a lie, which thusly causes harm to humanity by removing its moral protections, I call this immoral, what would you call it? Maybe the doctrine's creators didn't know how wrong they were, but they knew what they were doing when they imprisoned mankind within a moral denying metaphysical construct, which is immoral regardless of its founders intentions, due to its effects and implications. Einstein did not intend his atomic theory to be used to incinerate tens of thousands of Japanese, but it was nonetheless immoral to do so. Maybe certain denominations have mutated beyond this doctrinal cancer, these are few and far between and have no real impact on my conclusions. You can't use a minority to get a majority of the hook. Xtianity must answer for its crimes.

 

And sure, maybe what I believe doesn't fit the original purpose, but I doubt that either of us know it's original purpose.

 

The new Testament clearly gives us an early indication of the political, economic and social philosophy of the group. As well as the doctrinal polemics of its earliest leaders. It started as one thing, mutated into something immoral, and you are a further mutation that perhaps lacks such immorality, where lies the difficulty? The purpose of Christianity was to foster a personality and doomsday cult, designed to maintain a close nit community, isolated from the outside world, with elitist and snobbish protentions, but in a communist model, whatever evidence we do have of the early Christian community fits this model. We know where abouts Christianity developed, we know when from the references in the writings, and what kind of ideologies and theologies were put into the mix at various stages to create the "final" product. Pretty self-evident from the writings of Paul and the Gospels what they were after, they had skill enough to con illiterate Mediterraneans of the first century, but not enough to fool those good at reading between the lines.

 

But I also don't think any modern person follows the original ideology, whatever it was 1900 years ago.

 

There are many denominations that attempt to live their lies, sorry lives according to a strict reading of both acts, the Gospels and Paul's spiritual yammerings, some come pretty close. There may have been even earlier versions now lost to us, but that is therefore be irrelevant to any discussion. We are talking about Christianity here and now, and as it has been throughout recorded history, we could do this by majority or by primary tenants, either way xtianity is a serious problem. You may be trying to get your particular interpretation recognised as xtian or absolved, or even entire cult absolved by making it as nebulous as possible, all I can say is your "domination" is not what I'm talking about. If you do not adhere to Christian doctrine, then you can hardly disagree with my dissection of it. Think of it as a theological and ethical exercise, not a anti religious one.

 

So I suppose I agree that I'm not fitting its original purpose.

 

It's original purpose is irrelevant anyway, it's reality is what concerns me.

 

But I also think no one can be perfectly logical or skeptical.

 

So? Logic can be absolute like mathematics, so a "perfection" is possible. As for scepticism, that is not my position, I'm arguing from the perspective of logic and objective morality, although to be perfectly skeptical all one would have to do is require evidence for everything they encounter, and I do. Perfection is such a theistic term anyway.

 

Just as no one's beliefs can be infallible.

 

I know some theists who'd disagree with you on that one, anyway fallibility is the basis of empiricism, which is precisely why being fallible is not considered an obstacle, and why we are so good at pointing out the problems with theism. The problem isn't fallibility but that belief is a insufficient foundation for a worldview, or standard of ethics. All are fallible, but some are more likely to make mistakes than others.

 

Are you trying to say I might be wrong? That is why I made a falsifiable case, I wish to know for myself.

[Asimov]

Glad to know I can't be Christian because I don't fit your definition. I feel like I'm reading what a fundy is saying. Heh, oh well, I don't really care.

 

But I fail to see how it is logical to assume that a complex worldview can be simply moral or immoral. I don't think it is either.

 

And sure, maybe what I believe doesn't fit the original purpose, but I doubt that either of us know it's original purpose. But I also don't think any modern person follows the original ideology, whatever it was 1900 years ago.

 

So I suppose I agree that I'm not fitting its original purpose. But I also think no one can be perfectly logical or skeptical. Just as no one's beliefs can be infallible.

 

Sorry, BigToe, but I am leaning towards AUB on this one. Does it make me a Buddhist because I like what the Buddha teaches? No.

 

However, I'll have to agree with BigToe, because she said that she associates herself with Christ, although the label Christian in that sense is loose.

[BigToe]

No offence BT ( I find it ironic I agree with fundys as well' date=' but they have a point) but logic does not tolerate vague categorisations, if we considered Christianity to include anybody who vaguely likes some of Jesus's teachings we'd have no practical definition at all. [/quote']

 

I am not saying that anyone who simply likes his teachings should be considered Christian. I can think of a ton of people that did things I feel were good that I wouldn't want to be a follower of or worship in any way. So I agree, simply liking some things doesn't make one a Christian.

 

 

I was discussing the moral status of Christian doctrine, to that end I had to exclude those who do not believe or agree with it. You may consider yourself a Christian if you like, and my condemnation of the faith will not apply to you.

 

Right, I understand your criticisms now don't apply to me because I don't fit your definition. But when it comes down to definitions and who has which one, it merely becomes a game of semantics. A Southern Baptist's definition is going to differ widely from that of a Quaker or that of an Episcopalian. They all find their "base" in the Bible, all picking and choosing. None of them is any more "correct" than the other.

 

 

Its many appear to be a false dichotomy, but I was not excluding any possibility, there are many grey areas in matters of religion, but if analysed from the stark moral perspective of objectivity, then by fostering a dependency on authority for values, and discrediting morality itself, I would claim that this is the height of immorality. If preventing millions of people from acting morally is not immoral, then nothing is.

 

Yes, but I don't think religion, or Christianity specifically, defines what morality is. If we were to take a denomination that fit most with what your definition of a Christian is- there would still be degrees of disagreement as to what is right or wrong, a sin or not. But I also think morality goes much deeper than simply thinking something is right or wrong. And I also think that most people today misuse terms like "morals" for things that are quite relative from population to population. In doing so, one has to answer if morals are absolute or not. If they are, there can be no degress of relativity about them. If not, then they cannot be inherent but acquired some other way. And perhaps the discussion of moral relativity is best for a different philosophical thread. But then again, I do not think that religion genuinely claims to be mutually exclusive to morals. I think that is a claim that individuals make on behalf of the religion in order to make it more appealing to the masses.

 

 

We are talking about the specific elements of Christian doctrine, not the religion in all its intricacies, the essential elements that are at the heart of Christian doctrine from the very beginning. We all know what they are, I'm merely demonstrating that they are responsible for Christianity's crimes, and are a reflection on the religion itself, rather than entirely on the xtian criminals.

Many people believe that at the core of Christianity is Romans 10:9 dealing with faith. That seems to be what you feel salvation is based upon as well (faith). So that would be what would at the heart of Christianity- how is faith that Jesus is God and was raised from the dead to be blamed for the crimes of tons of people? I think it is what people go on from there to say, but not resting there alone. Jesus cannot be blamed for those crimes, but what people have done to twist their view of Jesus to justify those crimes. So if blame can be placed on someone for being a figure that can be twisted, then I suppose he is a monster.

 

This is a doctrinal issue, an analysis of the moral impact of Christian theology, it is a worldview, a perspective of life and humanity, a decree concerning man's relationship with a deity, and the metaphysical extensions of our lives. They are simple to break down, and they all result in damaging the minds of its adherents, every single one of these aspects are dangerous and flawed, together they are conclusively immoral.

But I do not agree they are inherently dangerous or immoral. Words on a page cannot have any roots in morality. And interpretation of them cannot. What an individual or group of individuals do with those words can, but in and of themselves they cannot. They do not make you do something or think something in particular. That should be obvious since there are so many different interpretations among the multitude of denominations. There is something else at play in these people that causes them to do the horrid things they do, it is not their belief alone. If it were, then all Christians everywhere would commit the same criminal acts, but they do not. So something about the individual has to be a factor. When a group of people act in a way together, there has to be something about the makeup of the group that causes them to have the behavior they have. It can not be their theological beliefs alone.

 

Yes, it might provide them with something they feel they can justify their actions with, but if I wanted to be a mass murderer, I am sure I could find something in The Three Little Pigs to justify it. That does not make that story inherrently evil or immoral. It would make me sick and twisted to do so, but that doesn't make the story as a whole sick and twisted. And yes, it would be much easier to pull something from the Bible to justify horrible acts, but I think you understand what I am trying to say, yes?

 

Very few philosophies or religions can truly be defined in such stark moral terms, and I understand your objection, but I see no flaw in my reasoning, and it is a common attitude expressed in less specific terms, among many freethinkers over many centuries.

I don't think it being a common attitude means it isn't flawed. I am sure we can both go over a multitude of things that were common attitudes for centuries that we both agree are horribly flawed. Furthermore, I don't see how the authority that your thoughts are a common attitude is any less flawed than people believing the Bible because it was "written by God." Both are falling back on some form of authority that is seperate from themselves.

 

Christian doctrine has a overwhelmingly negative effect on the human race, I've given my moral and logical reasons for this opinion, as well as historical examples, you may object on principle, but there is no assumption here, and complexity does not imply moral neutrality.

I didn't mean to imply that I felt it was morally neutral. But I believe the question of morality exists outside of religion. But with the complexities involved in looking at modern day Christianity, I don't think it is as simple as stating "Christianity is immoral" or that its "doctrine has a negative effect on humans." Why? Because there is not a single "doctrine" or school of thought in modern day Christianity. I understand that is one of the issues you're taking up, but it doesn't negate the fact that that is how it is at this point in time. I think taking historical examples alone isn't a way to arrive at something's inherrent morality either. Because someone else can come along and provide examples of how Christianity is "good." Sure it is much easier to look at the Inquisition or something and think "Look, it is bad stuff, the whole lot." But I don't think there are many (at least none that anyone here would say has a brain about them) that would look at those examples of good things. I agree, groups of Christians, and other religious people, have done some disgustingly evil things. But there are groups that do things to help others out- groups providing free medical care or the like. Both sides feel that they are doing so for God and because of God. So that also shows that Christianity cannot be naturally negative, but again what people do WITH it that is negative. And yes, I agree there have been larger and more numerous occasions of people feeling called by God to do bad than good. And in this day and age we certainly focus a lot more on the negative of everything. So when people from the same congregation in the same town with the same teaching can do things from both ends of that spectrum- how do we account for what makes the evil ones evil and the good ones good? Are the good ones not "true" Christians?

 

 

Presuppositionalist arguments are complex, but still a load of dishonest crap. If morality is to be based on empirical fact, and acknowledged as deriving from inherent cognitive functions, then xtian doctrine being the opposite of this is a lie, which thusly causes harm to humanity by removing its moral protections, I call this immoral, what would you call it?

Well again, you have to make the claim as to morality's absolutism or relativism. You seem to be in favor of the absolute. But again, we have Christians in the same group, holding to the same basic doctrine that behave in contradictory ways. Each one believes they are on the moral high ground and the other is not. So I don't think that one can say Christianity is involved in morality but outside of it. Granted, I don't think we disagree on the inherentness of morality so this is pretty moot. But I think there are many denominations that don't ascribe to a sort of moral code simply because of God or the promise of Heaven or the threat of Hell. But that gets into the discussion of a fear based or rewards based religion- or neither. I have a problem with both rewards and fear based religions, much for the same reason you find Christianity to be immoral- the motivating factors. But I don't think that is the point of Christianity.

 

I'm going to stick with your definition of a Christian for a moment. But they see Jesus as perfect and without sin. To them, that would be a moral man. They also feel that part of their journey as a Christian is to become more Christ-like, basically to be sin free. In their understanding, Jesus didn't do what he did because he had another motive- like getting to heaven or escaping hell, or even gaining followers. They see Jesus as a man who would see a situation that needed fixing and he would fix it- not because he could get something from it, but because it needed to be fixed. (I understand that isn't your view or what you feel was the motives behind those writing the Bible. But this is what "Christians" see it as). Now, wouldn't part of their becomming more Christ-like be the removal of outside motives for their behavior but just simply doing it because it is the right thing to do? And isn't that, in time, getting rid of the obstacles to morality? So ultimately, to them, it is about getting to genuine morality instead of doing what is right because someone tells you it is right.

 

Maybe the doctrine's creators didn't know how wrong they were, but they knew what they were doing when they imprisoned mankind within a moral denying metaphysical construct, which is immoral regardless of its founders intentions, due to its effects and implications.

 

Because something can be used as a tool of evil doesn't make it immoral because of its effects. Guns murder people, they aren't inherently immoral. Authoritarian forms of communism can cause harm, but that does not make communism itself inherently immoral.

 

Plus, I doubt the creators of Chrsitianity were Machiavellian enough to create what you feel they did intentionally. Perhaps I don't give them enough credit? hehe.

 

 

Einstein did not intend his atomic theory to be used to incinerate tens of thousands of Japanese, but it was nonetheless immoral to do so.

I'm confused- are you saying Einstein's atomic theory is immoral because people used it for evil? Or are you saying that using it for evil is immoral without his intention of it being used that way?

Maybe certain denominations have mutated beyond this doctrinal cancer, these are few and far between and have no real impact on my conclusions. You can't use a minority to get a majority of the hook. Xtianity must answer for its crimes.

I don't think anyone claims Christians are innocent of crimes commit in God's name. And I think there are a lot of people that are trying to get beyond that and ensure that doesn't happen again. And there are churches within the various denominations that are trying individually to break away from their denomination's "dogma first and foremost" reputations. Discrediting the whole is being dishonest.

 

 

The new Testament clearly gives us an early indication of the political, economic and social philosophy of the group. As well as the doctrinal polemics of its earliest leaders. It started as one thing, mutated into something immoral, and you are a further mutation that perhaps lacks such immorality, where lies the difficulty?

Are you simply refering to early Christians or Jews as well? Because many of those tied into a legalistic doctrine were "rebuked" by Jesus. That is why many times today you have liberal Christians referring to the more rabid fundamentalists as Pharisees. There are many Christians, like myself, that do not necessarily believe Jesus was God that feel he was put to death for directly opposing the then dominant political paradigm.

The purpose of Christianity was to foster a personality and doomsday cult, designed to maintain a close nit community, isolated from the outside world, with elitist and snobbish protentions, but in a communist model, whatever evidence we do have of the early Christian community fits this model.

 

And naturally you would believe that as someone with as militant views against religion as you do. And I think there are groups now that do just that and live in their little bubbles. But I feel that directly contradicts much of what Jesus is attributed to saying. The 'Great Commission' is in direct opposition to living in your little cultish community. It says to go make disciples of all nations. Now, my belief of what that means is much different than an orthodox fundamentalist thinks. I think the ideas of loving our neighbors and enemies is in direct conflict with living in a bubble as well.

 

We know where abouts Christianity developed, we know when from the references in the writings, and what kind of ideologies and theologies were put into the mix at various stages to create the "final" product. Pretty self-evident from the writings of Paul and the Gospels what they were after, they had skill enough to con illiterate Mediterraneans of the first century, but not enough to fool those good at reading between the lines.

Final products now- of which there are many. Again, I do not think that makes Christianity in and of itself inherent immoral, but the dogmas that have been created upon that foundation. But to me, Christianity is rooted in Christ and not Paul's writings. I know there are many Christians that disagree and put a lot more stock in what Paul had to say than what Jesus did.

 

There are many denominations that attempt to live their lies, sorry lives according to a strict reading of both acts, the Gospels and Paul's spiritual yammerings, some come pretty close. There may have been even earlier versions now lost to us, but that is therefore be irrelevant to any discussion. We are talking about Christianity here and now, and as it has been throughout recorded history, we could do this by majority or by primary tenants, either way xtianity is a serious problem.

Yes, a strict reading of whichever translation they choose to use. Which are modern. Or what individual groups throughout the history have done. But maintaining the same traditions is far from maintaining the same ideology.

 

You may be trying to get your particular interpretation recognised as xtian or absolved, or even entire cult absolved by making it as nebulous as possible, all I can say is your "domination" is not what I'm talking about. If you do not adhere to Christian doctrine, then you can hardly disagree with my dissection of it. Think of it as a theological and ethical exercise, not a anti religious one.

Because I do not adhere to a doctrine doesn't mean I cannot disagree with your dissection of it. And I am certainly by no means trying to claim that the wrongs of Christians past and present have been indemnified. There are many that simply cannot be paid back. (I, personally have nothing to be absolved of because I'm perfect )

It's original purpose is irrelevant anyway, it's reality is what concerns me.

Well, you are the one that brought up it's original purpose.

So? Logic can be absolute like mathematics, so a "perfection" is possible. As for scepticism, that is not my position, I'm arguing from the perspective of logic and objective morality, although to be perfectly skeptical all one would have to do is require evidence for everything they encounter, and I do. Perfection is such a theistic term anyway.

Possible? Sure, that doesn't mean I think there is anyone "perfectly" logical. But the reasons behind that aren't one of a religious nature and thus lead into an entirely separate philosophical discussion. How is perfection a theistic term?

 

I know some theists who'd disagree with you on that one, anyway fallibility is the basis of empiricism, which is precisely why being fallible is not considered an obstacle, and why we are so good at pointing out the problems with theism. The problem isn't fallibility but that belief is a insufficient foundation for a worldview, or standard of ethics. All are fallible, but some are more likely to make mistakes than others.

Haha, yes I know several theists that would disagree with me as well. That is obviously where my thoughts on the matter stray quite a bit from orthodoxy. I agree that fallibility isn't a problem and that belief alone is an insufficient foundation.

 

Are you trying to say I might be wrong? That is why I made a falsifiable case, I wish to know for myself.

Sure, you might be wrong. But that isn't what I am trying to say. I don't think the point of dialogue is to point out that any one character is right or wrong, but instead the exhange of ideas. Agreement isn't my mission. Just discussion and perhaps more understanding of where you are coming from.

 

 

Speaking of which- this is a dialogue I would like to continue. However, I am leaving town and am unsure of my internet access. That being said- if I don't respond in a prompt fashion, it isn't because I am backing out. I find that to be disrespectful to anyone involved in a discussion and wanted to let you know that I do not wish to extend any disrespect towards you.

 

And apparently I am too dense to use the quote function properly. Sorry about that. I've added color to the parts of your post I was responding to.

[diggin]

Sure, happy to.

Ask a question about the failure of Christianity to do what it claims, and I'll probably shock you by how much I agree.

 

Let me propose 2 questions:

 

Does God hold Christians accountable after they "accept Christ"?

 

Does God hold non-christians accountable for not accepting Christ before they die?

 

Keep thinkin, Asimov!

[zfunkman]

Sure, happy to.

Ask a question about the failure of Christianity to do what it claims, and I'll probably shock you by how much I agree.

 

Let me propose 2 questions:

 

Does God hold Christians accountable after they "accept Christ"?

 

Does God hold non-christians accountable for not accepting Christ before they die?

 

Keep thinkin, Asimov!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will answer both questions with one answer. THERE IS NO GOD.

[Reach]

Asimov, I think you got yourself a winner!

[Francois Tremblay]

The use of the word "accountable" here needs to be clarified. I know what it means to hold someone accountable of an action in an objective universe because there is moral obligation, but in the Cartoon Universe of Christianity how can accountability exist ?

[Reach]

The use of the word "accountable" here needs to be clarified. I know what it means to hold someone accountable of an action in an objective universe because there is moral obligation, but in the Cartoon Universe of Christianity how can accountability exist ?

Good question.

[- AUB -]

That's the point Tremblay, in the jesus-verse there is no accountabliity, by removing it, xtianity endangers humanity.

 

BT

 

I'll go into greater detail if nessesary, but for now, your long dissection was not needed, I understand your position, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The problem centers on your understanding of morality and your faith, by my definitions what I say is valid, you can disagree but as we are so differant in our understanding a dialogue will lead nowhere, you dont think xitanity can be defined well enough to be judged, fine I'll lay it out again.

 

Xtian doctrine is defined my certain basic tenents, those that lack it are few and irrelivent. I'm not attacking a vague concept but a specific ideology that has dominated western culture for 2k yrs, and continues to do so, denominational differances are cosmetic, they dont disagree on the basics (jesus is our savour etc) just the details. Any faith not in agreement with ANY of the following definitions cannot be called xtian without the term losing all meaning. (even so it's still these doctines I'm attacking not any denomination) Again you'll disagree, but it's not you version I'm concerning with. You may not wish to prove your position is correct over others, but I do, dialogue is fine, but where talking logical proofs here. Any combination or amount of these doctines would have an immoral effect, regardless of specifics...

 

First... We are inherant sinners thanks to the fall, and hell bound

 

second... We cannot be saved without Jesus, (however that might be achieved)

 

 

Third... Morality derived from gods arbitary whim, it is absolute, and applys only to humanity, not god, who cannot be judged.

 

 

Forth... Only with god's "grace" can we be saved, its all thanks to him as we lack any innate ability to save ourselves. "slaves to sin" etc

 

Fifth.... Faith is the most important aspect of life , more than behavour. (Salvation depends on religion, so heaven and hell are irrelivent to morality. Punishment and reward based on faith is why so many xtians have been able to commit horrors with a clear "conscience" there's nothing to modify actions, not that xtians have any ethics to go by anyway (see 3). As for those who think the afterlives are dependant on behavour they are acting selfishly regardless, an atheist does a good deed for it's own sake but a deity that takes account of everthing you do means no good deed goes un-rewarded. By either view the possiblity of moral action is negated.)

 

All these are backed up by the bible, from Paul onwards, modern liberal xtains may disagree, but they are more humanist than anything and this is about doctrine not "xtianity" as a label.

 

By the standards of objective morality this re definition of ethics as god derived or "divine command theory" is arbitary and has been dicredited since Plato. By having god watch you all the time altruism is negated, empathy is overrided by faith concerns. ("hate your mother and father") But as empathy and altruism are the basis of morality, and as these are inherant, all these doctrinal elements result in a group of people without moral values, or any understaning of their importance. Their innate capacities have been snuffed out by a denial of them. To make people so amoral is wrong, according to any decent and especially objective moral values.

 

If you disagree with my definitions fine, but it's the ethical nature of these doctrines I'm concerned with, not your faiths reputation. please stop objecting to a point that I'm not here to debate. We are inherantly moral, these doctrines say we are not, and need blind obediance to an arbitary authority more than anything else in the universe. This is the oppposite of the truth, of ourselves and the reality of ethics, as such it is the opposite or morality, immorality. Can I make it any clearer?

 

Redefine ethics, redefine xtianity, but this is about the conclusions I have reached by logic and objectivity, use them to debunk what I've said, otherwise we'll just be going round in circles. Even if I agreed that there where xtianities that have none of these doctrines, so what? Its these doctrines I'm attacking, if xtianity lacked them all it would no longer be a threat, it is these dogmas that have caused so much suffering, these are what i found when tracing the origins of all the attrocites of xtian history, any faith with them is immoral. You want to define xtianity by its exceptions? Fine I'll go by the rule. If the immoral elements that make up the majority of xtian cults are removed then "xtianity" by your understanding will cease to by my enemy, until then, its my logical punching bag.

[Francois Tremblay]

As an individualist and egoist, I cringed audibly when you said that altruism and empathy were the basis of morality, but I think we're generally on the same page.

[- AUB -]

Idividualism is fine (indeed I'm so individual that I rarely have the opportunity to apply my ethical values) but moral responsiblity is defined by our interactions, not just isolated reasoning. Morality can be a rational excersise, indeed reason and logic have to be used, or we'll end up with religous dogmas, but empiricism comes 1st and neuro science dictates such drives as empathy are instinctive and without which we'd lack the desire to apply any moral values. Such as with a psychopath who lacks the empathy elements of the brain and cannot be moral.

 

Any thought on my logical breakdown? BT and I have too many differances to meet on any plane.

[chefranden]

Christian doctrine has a overwhelmingly negative effect on the human race,

 

I would have agreed a couple of months ago, but now I don't. Why? Because Christianity is not the root of evil, it is merely a symptom of it. The root is the civilization of totalitarian agriculture that took root about 10,000 years ago.

 

Totalitarian Agriculture: This is a form of agriculture unique to estranged cultures, and more specifically, to civilization. It is the full-time domestication of crops, livestock, and humans where the main goal is to turn as much material as possible into human food. Anything that humans do not use is expendable under this method. It is practiced without regard for the lives of other living beings, often other human beings, or whether the practice can be sustained (demonstrating a lack of regard for future human beings as well). Generally, the amount of food available to a population is regulated by the environment, and the population will be limited to a number in balance with these resources. In all other forms of agriculture, the amount of food produced has a negligible effect on this balance. Societies utilize totalitarian agriculture however when their beliefs compel them to break from this regulation. As more food is produced, so the population increases, which in turn requires an increase in food production, and so on. The result is an ever increasing, ever expanding population that ultimately seeks to subjugates every scrap of usable land to that purpose. With a focus on expedience, since population expansion is exponential, the tactics used to squeeze human-food from land, tend to be non-sustainable, simply because they are ultimately destructive to the ecosystem in which they are practiced. Two well known examples of this process are found with the Mesopotamian Empire (6000 BCE) who turned the Fertile Crescent into a desert, and the United States (mid 1930s) who, through massive soil depletion common to this system, turned the Great Plains of North America into a "dust bowl". This ultimately has the paradoxical byproduct of famine, since a region's carrying capacity (how much life it can support) will always be limited. Once a population increases past a certain threshold, any change in local conditions can cause a massive drop in food production, and so a shortage of food. An example of this can be seen in Ethiopia where totalitarian agriculture was imposed by outside cultures. Their social system was unable to cope with their growing numbers within the limitations of the region, and they are now condemned to wild fluctuations between population growth and famine. Also, since totalitarian tactics include elimination of diversity, regions are correspondingly that much more sensitive to change than they otherwise would be in their natural state.

 

Christianity is just one means of promotion of tolalitarian agriculture.

 

I'm sorry that I'm going out of town for a week and that I won't be able to discuss this till later.

[Asimov]

Does God hold Christians accountable after they "accept Christ"?

 

I guess I should assume God does exist.

 

Well, depends on the Christian. Universalists believe everyone will get to heaven eventually, and because Christ died for our sins, accountability isn't a factor, although you will be punished if you didn't accept Christ.

 

Other denoms state that one must repent periodically for any recent sins they have commited, I guess much like confessions, except in prayer and with the Holy Spirit.

 

And still other denoms believe that True Christians who receive the Holy Spirit don't have to be accountable because the Holy Spirit wills them away from committing sin.

 

Others state with accepting the Holy Spirit, Jesus helps you stop sinning.

 

So I guess it depends on how you like to get freaky, xtian style.

 

Does God hold non-christians accountable for not accepting Christ before they die?

 

Well, in Universalism, non-christians will be punished for not accepting Christ, but the punishment is temporary.

 

I would say, in other forms of xtianity, yes.

 

Of course, one must then question "is it Just for God to hold us accountable for acceptance or non-acceptance.

 

Clearly in Christian doctrine those who do not accept Christ cannot do good works, therefore they are in bondage to sin. If that is true, how can one accept Christ? That would be a good work.

 

If it is impossible for one to just believe, how can one accept Christ anyways, without the Holy spirit intervening?

 

And if this is true, then how can one be accountable for accepting or not accepting, if it is up to the Holy Spirit to imbue with you goodness and the acceptance of Christ?

 

And if this is true, then why isn't the whole world Christian?

 

Keep thinkin, Asimov!

 

But we're discussing Christianity....