Any Christians Up For Some Debate?

[Francois Tremblay]

Empathy is not necessary to have objective values.

[Asimov]

Empathy is not necessary to have objective values.

 

I agree.

 

That's what I don't like about Reggie's argument about secular morality, how he empathises that he wouldn't like pain, so he wouldn't hurt others...

[- AUB -]

Empathy is not necessary to have objective values.

 

Maybe not in theory, but it would make ethics very impractical.

 

 

I'll try to explain how I see it. Those without empathy (due to mental problems) cannot be moral, or be held responsible, empathy is an essential element of any moral system to work in society, we may be able to fashion ethics out of a detatched rationalism, but empathy forms an instinctive basis for not harming and is the origin of early pre-rational ethics. You can be ethical without being rational in a crude way, the denial of empathy is what makes xtianity such a menace. Without empathy we would not have survived as a species, no altruism all selfishness, separate from humanity. Those without it can be reasoned with on a purely interlectual level to be moral, showing ethics can be cerebral but it is a pragmatic concern for them. They don't fully see in an objective sense why harm or death is undesirable as they live in a totally subjective world, and cannot apply their own sense of self preservation or dislike of pain onto others, they cant "see through our eyes" and see humanity as one in terms of values and rights, as an objective commonality. Do no harm only applies to them, they are the human universe, and as such lack an objective application for ethics.

 

In other words if you cannot see how ethics applies to all outside yourself, that all are objectivly just as susceptible to harm you wish to avoid, you'd harm someone unable to understand that it hurts them as much as it would hurt you, no golden rule etc.

[Francois Tremblay]

You seem to be working under the assumption that "feeling is believing", and that therefore people who fail to feel the repercussions of something will never be able to understand them. I find your position to be prejudiced and very offensive.

[- AUB -]

Not feeling, relating to. Projecting self value onto all others. Seeing oneself as reflected in all humanity, realising an objective species exists that needs to be taken into account, maybe even before oneself.

[Francois Tremblay]

Now you're being anti-individualist.

[- AUB -]

No NO NO NO

 

You need to value your individual self FIRST, then others, its a chain reaction. Empathy isn't a emotional but a phycological function, 1st developed to help us visualise what an enemy animal was seeing, by observing eye and body details. Theism teaches that you are sinfull and worthless, (unless etc) how can u value others and not yourself? Very inconsistant attitute to humanity. Its all or none, as I see it.

 

 

Individualism and a empathy derived humanism are both part of my philosophy, no one would accuse me of not being individualistic, I follow no one, I just agree or disagree. I agree if reason and logic are satisfied, and if not then I continue on my own, and chalk up another apponent.

 

 

You have to value and prioritize ALL humanity, including yourself in order to have a totally inclusive system of ethics, nothing is higher in meaning than the individual, you are the most important thing in existance, but so is everone else, a multitude of infinate value. It is an interrelation of the one with the all. Humanity is worth all, BECAUSE the individual is worth all, just more so as there's more of them than you, a numbers thing. If the individual wasn't more significant than all except others morality would be pointless.

 

I'll try to go into detail later, we really need to sort this out, but for now there's a theist here who needs a thrashing.

[Francois Tremblay]

Yes, this is highly off-topic so I will desist. All I'm saying is that you're presenting a confused picture, which a Christian may interpret as support for his God-centered collectivist fascist views.

 

The fact is, "humanity" has no values - only individuals have values. We cooperate because cooperation is the most efficient way we have of fulfilling more of our values. Considering other people's values is completely irrational.

[- AUB -]

Considering other people's value

 

 

we agree, but just use differant language I use the term "humanity" as a collective term for all the 6.3 billion individuals, none of whom matter more than any other (individualy), we are equal in value due to our shared nature, but equal in a philosophical or cultural sense by virtue of the fact that no one can dictate meaning etc onto anyone else. (there is no single meaning of life etc) This is not a xtian (or borg) style collective but simply an acknowlagement of all others, as sharing the same value, not values. Its about priority, theism puts other things (doctrines) ahead of humanity, (i.e. human life, in any number) your position and mine puts 1 life ahead of all the values that religions have invented, I just enfasise the extrapolation of that principle onto all humans, not together as one, but on all individuals equaly.

 

You can hardly believe your life is equal to all other human lives put together, its a numbers game, I'm worth 1 infinate unit, your worth 1, two people together are worth 2, humanity is worth 6.3 billion units, any philosophy as to serve the best interests of all that are, (or it's relative and narrow minded), by recognising the reality of the individual, but 3 must still come before 1.

 

Look at it this way, for Harmony (not order) to be achieved, every individual must be taken into account, "humanity" is the "every" individual, all must receive and benifit from an enlightened system (that's fare right?) and it has to work on every number of humans, from 1 to the lot. Its a balance, your values may work for u, but unless they can apply to all, its relative, "fine" you say, "i'm entitled to my values" or "I don't want them applied to all", yes but we also need a system that can encompase everyone, (anarchy is not an option), yourself included, that does not violate your values, or anyone elses, a set of basic values, that leaves not 1 person left out, harmed or unsatisfied. (you may disagre, but where on this planet together, an speaking personaly I can't sit back while unethical ideologues shaft my species, it is both rationaly false and immoral) It has to apply to all as no one enlightened could be happy if anyone else is not, the empathy factor garantees that all come to benefit from a correct set of ethics, laws etc. This is called the Bodhisattva principle. (Mystical originally but now a rational concept) and means that so long as empathy exists humanity will be unable to acheive Harmony with any left out. If objective ethics cannot be applied to all, what's the point?

 

I've noticed this habit people have of labeling other philosophies as "xtian" in nature, the agnostic claims atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, that moron Derek say logic is a Hitler like creed, and individualists claim humanism is xtian like in attitute, all these misconceptions stem from a lack of open minded study. In the case of theists (Derek) this is due to the fact that religion is a mental impediment, with non-theists it is out of a paranoid fear of a "cloaked" xtianity, that casues you to mistake an ally for an enemy. I know your philosophy very well FT, it is the same as mine, what we have is a failer to communicate, nothing more.

 

So sum up, values are individual, derived from the individual and not dictated by any other person or group, but ethics are universal, they apply to all as all are human, "humanity" needs a single objective set, rather than a jumble of individualistic relative values. An individual can come to the same ethical value as any other using logic etc, so individualism and humanism can both apply so long as both derive their values from reality through the correct methods. A humanist is simply a individualist who thinks it's wise emphasises responsiblity (our individualism is often what causes us to leave theism), derived from a rational appraisal of society and our species. We see humanity as the objective derivation of ethics, and the inventors of all values (religious or otherwise) and think it important to remember that. There is reality, and humanity, some things we value are based on one, some on the other.

[NorthenSun]

You have to value and prioritize ALL humanity, including yourself in order to have a totally inclusive system of ethics, nothing is higher in meaning than the individual, you are the most important thing in existance, but so is everone else, a multitude of infinate value. It is an interrelation of the one with the all. Humanity is worth all, BECAUSE the individual is worth all, just more so as there's more of them than you, a numbers thing. If the individual wasn't more significant than all except others morality would be pointless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed. Bravo.

 

Or as Spook replies to Captain Kirk, "Yes, sometimes the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many".

[Francois Tremblay]

I think I'll just go ahead and ignore all the collectivists, so I can save you and I both a great deal of pointless arguing.

[- AUB -]

BigToe

 

Well I'm finally getting round to answering your earlier dissection, I like to be thorough and deal with everything addressed to be, and although the purpose of my posts was to demonstrate a logical argument for the inherent immorality of Christian doctrine, a dialogue with you may still be helpful. I will attempt to dissect every sentance. (in 3 parts)

 

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.

 

That is a very interesting statement, and is my usual response when people tell me how they know nice xtians who do good things, as if that was proof that the religion is either decent or true. My general position is not that xtian's cannot be nice, but their religion is inherently wrong, a fact that most xtian's are completely oblivious to, hence there seemingly moral behaviour. Those that truely embrace the varieties of doctrine and the Bible are those which both you and I would agree are dangerous, intolerant and sick. These people are a clue as the true nature of Christianity or Islam, not aberrations or fringe lunatics, they invariably know the Bible and their religious doctrine better than most xtian's such as yourself.

 

In a recent Pasach debate (I attend Jewish ceremonies because they need a debater and I find it intellectually stimulating) there was a Shebrew who had a "live and let live" attitude, who wondered whether certain religions could be just "right" for different people. I objected on the grounds that religions are either right or wrong in its claims or its moral stance. I then proceeded to demonstrate what I considered good reasons for xtianity's dismissal, both as a true revelation and a force for good. But she then proceeded to tell me about some xtian converts she knew that did good things, charities etc. Maybe these people are encouraged to behave that way because of their particular xtian community, or maybe they are doing it is due to the kind of selfish drives that xtianity installs in people, or maybe they were just decent people anyway. Either way their behaviour was not representative of the religion as a whole, or its central doctrines, or the behaviour of believers and their God in the Bible. Especially as we cannot, as she put it "know the state of their hearts". A rather theistic way of putting it, but I never credit a person's actions to a single cause or belief until I have traced to their motives to a specific source or state of mind.

 

The point is, every religion has good people in it, even Nazism had Oscar Schindler. And I am glad that an "xtian" sees its my way, no amount of decent xtian's can change the past, or its inherent nature. I still disagree on every level with the religion, and will continue to undermine it. As to how much a person has to believe in the central tenants of xtianity to be xtian, that is a nebulous area at times, but the doctrines I have previously load out, have been the cause of great deal of suffering, that is a historical fact, and as they are still a significant part of so many versions of xtianity, so I still consider the religion a considerable threat to humanity. This may not apply to your understanding of it, but it does apply to many millions of believers, who have been corrupted and abused, many remain its victims, and many use it to victimise others. Christianity is more than just the nicer teachings of Jesus, it is he is darker words and deeds, along with the rest of the Bible, and there is enough immorality and falsehoods in their to destroy the world a million times over.

 

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.

 

Not within the specific confines I laid out, yes all these religious denominations are throwing semantics about, or have meaningless qualifications and waste their time with word games, but that is down to the inherent falsehood of theology. Their behaviour can still be judged, and their central tenants, although subjectively derived are nonetheless applied in a manner that can be objectively studied. This comes back to my understanding of objective morality, although the beliefs and motives of these Theists are subjective and based on empty words, nonetheless the effects they have are real, and therefore within the confines of objective morality can be understood and judged.

 

I couldn't care less about the justifications for each denominations claims to be the "one truth" nor the way xtian's are able to get out of certain accusations concerning its history or interpretations by simply belonging to one version that has escaped from these implications, that is just part of being in a cult like xtianity. The Bible is deliberately inconsistent due to being an amalgamation of so many different agendas and theologies trying to out-do each other. Regardless of this, there is still much that can be said concerning xtianity's impact on humanity, although it is no longer simply a case of one or two continent spanning churches committing vast atrocities, but rather many different denominations all with different problems, there is one unifying factor in all this, xtianity sucks. This is due to its central tenants, its views on the human race, and this will always be so.

It is part of being a cult, and to a certain extent a religion, all faiths share many of these problems. What makes xtianity unique is that it has all these conceivable problems combined into one dogma, and no matter how you split it, it's still immoral. The question is how this can be demonstrated or determined, not which denominations this applies to, that is the area I wish to test, as determining the inherent immorality of an idea can be quite difficult. Many people have different concepts of morality, and ideas.

 

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.

 

I agree completely, however this is not about the interpretations or definitions of either the faith or its central tenants, regardless of these many different variations they still prescribe to the doctrines I have listed, all of which combine in such a devastating immoral paradigm that it can be altered in many different ways and still have a detrimental effect on humanity. Very few xtian denomination are as inprecise as yours, the Episcopalian's and Southern Baptist's have many differences, but they all contain the immoral doctrines. I have studied them all, none are exempt from the problems I have listed, either in their individual interpretations of what xtianity means, or in the behaviour of their followers.

Try and find one that has not got moral controversies surrounding it. Try to find an ex-xtian here who did not belong to any these denominations, and has not suffered at the hands of them. Very few versions of xtianity do not look down on humanity, and do not contain the two principal features of a mind control cult, that of breaking a follower down, then only offering them only one way out, their way. It is precisely because they all have this exclusivist nature that they remain so rigidly separate from each other. In other words their inherent similarities cause of their division.

You'll find that the removal of all the doctrines I listed, would result in a worldview that does not resemble any xtian denomination, but rather a view of Jesus an agnostic would have. Try it, see what you are left with. There are many different ways to be immoral, these denominations are a demonstration of that fact. Besides none of this changes the fact that the existence of a God puts morality in a awkward position in itself, (Eurythro dilemma) let alone all the other implications. And as I have previously stated, xtian's cannot be moral without defying their central precepts, which you appear to do, therefore regardless of the fact that my condemnation fails to apply to you, you still fit within the theory I have outlined.

 

Yes, but I don't think religion, or Christianity specifically, defines what morality is.

 

And there in lies the problem. Xtianity more than any other faith either cancels out any moral contents with its "faith over all else" ideology or defines morality in either vague or arbitrary ways. Quite how it gained its reputation as a moral authority is beyond me, as is far as I can see morality is usually the furthest thing from its mind. They spend so much time trying to make sure everyone equates a "Christian act" with a "moral act" for example, that they never actually get round to defining any ethical values at all. At least not ones I find laudable.

To me morality is a philosophical exercise, not a religious one, as to me religion is a matter of believing in things, usually improbable or invisible ones, whereas morality is far more down-to-earth. Although a deity or mystical force may serve as a explanation or origin for morality this is largely like using xtianity as the excuse for a "first cause" or "cosmological" argument. It may provide some with the simple or "pat" explanation for existence or in our case ethics, but it doesn't help to define or detail what we are dealing with. If Christians want to claim they have a explanation for the origin of morals, fine, but they have no right to tell us what moral values to follow. Neither their track record nor their deity's behaviour justifies that attitude.

 

If we were to take a denomination that fit most with what your definition of a Christian is-

 

Again you misunderstand, I am not defining Christianity at all, I am detailing its principal doctrines and explaining why they are inherently immoral. I do not have to define Christianity to do that, just gather in the typical elements of either the majority or as I think, all have. Besides even if this only applied to Catholicism and Protestantism, it still covers a significant percent, that for the sake of argument, if rendered immoral does deal a severe blow to the faith's reputation. And that is my intention.

 

there would still be degrees of disagreement as to what is right or wrong, a sin or not.

 

But that is the problem, sin itself is an inherently immoral concept. There may be disagreement on the details, but they all believe in a God, and most of the elements and concepts described in the Bible, all of which I have a problem with. There is not one saving virtue in the whole scheme.

 

But I also think morality goes much deeper than simply thinking something is right or wrong.

 

I agree, hence my stance with objective morality, it is a complex standard dealing with all of humanities interactions and attitudes.

 

And I also think that most people today misuse terms like "morals" for things that are quite relative from population to population.

 

This is precisely what I have been saying in my many early essays, xtianity in particular fixates on issues such as gay marriage or pornography, (minutiae that should largely be down to personal choice,) and make a moral crusade out of it, all the while ignoring fundamental issues such as life and death, war and peace. They are no longer, (nor how they ever been of course) the moral guardians of society, but the irrelevant obsessives, the nit-picking obsoletes. The moral fundamentals of Western civilisation are derived from the secular values of either the Renaissance, enlightenment, or Saxon and Roman law. All the Bible ever gave us was excuses to abuse women and start pointless wars. All these current controversies are based on ancient cultural taboos and conventions, social traditions not moral standards, but their absolutist stance means they constantly confuse the relative for the objective. This is precisely what people like me fight against.

 

In doing so, one has to answer if morals are absolute or not.

 

I have already explained, that the term "absolute" is used inappropriately by religions to silence all debate, difference of opinion or dissent. To foster a degree of certainty that borders on the psychotic. Even on issues that dwell in grey or ambiguous areas. They cannot be seen to be uncertain, as doubt is considered a sin, they have "all the answers" so they claim, therefore they have to have a position on every issue, even on ones they have no right to, like all of them. They wish to be seen as a all-encompassing authority, absolutism alone within political or religious ideologies has caused immeasurable suffering throughout history, it is the principal flaw in xtianity particularly. They are the spokesman for a propaganda spewing dictatorial paradigm, they just deal with ethics and laws rather than armies and wars.

 

If they are, there can be no degress of relativity about them.

 

You are trapped within a religiously derived false dichotomy, between absolute and relative, you forget about objective. I suggest you go back and read the posts on this subject, you may in fact that agree with it, and it would help you to understand my position, both concerning the inherently immorality of Christian doctrine, and with ethics in general. There are times you actually come close to agreeing with my position and sounding like a objective moralist, it may be the position for you. You at leased understand the difficulties, you just need more options.

 

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

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...findpost&p=3944

 

The main part is relevent, but check the whole thread.

 

But then again, I do not think that religion genuinely claims to be mutually exclusive to morals.

 

I tend to think that morality is mutually incompatible with religion, regardless of their claims.

 

I think that is a claim that individuals make on behalf of the religion in order to make it more appealing to the masses.

 

 

Bingo, honestly you sound just like me sometimes. It's also a byproduct of the emphasis of God as the source of everything, and as they are the "true" religion of this God, therefore only they can understand morality, they say the same about logic, science, and everything else they have no right to. Arrogance and presumption are their watchwords. You want a moral code, get a moral code, you don't need a load of theological shite mixed in with it, especially as the theology invariably cancels out the ethics.

 

Many people believe that at the core of Christianity is Romans 10:9 dealing with faith.

 

Yes but then they attach a bunch of other stuff onto it. Even if they didn't, belief in these things requires a great deal of credulity, and the moral implications of salvation being dependent on buying one ridiculous mythology over others, let alone at all, is quite severe. The idea that your moral actions don't count unless you've been saved is quite appalling, at leased in Judaism moral deeds cancel out the time spent in Sheol regardless of belief.

 

how is faith that Jesus is God and was raised from the dead to be blamed for the crimes of tons of people?

 

 

And now we get to the heart of it, at last. Apart from the fact that no denomination rests on this alone, as the Bible is more than just one passage, and Jesus said many other things as well, some of which of course conflict with this one, why is belief in this one supposed incident so important? That is the question that needs to be asked, why would a church be willing to let people off with this one belief? Surely it wants to dig its claws deep and keep everybody within its fold? Well of course it does, this is the hook, they make it look easy, then they dig in. It's all about easy answers, a quick baptism, the removal of sin, and by the time you notice the small print your sucked into it. It's a sales tactic, nothing more. Asking us to believe the lord of the universe watches everything little thing we do is one thing, expecting us to believe that the most important thing we should do is believe this one story is preposterous. I fell to see what's so important about it personally.

 

Your taking this passage and the general understanding of it at face value, but it was written precisely with the effects described in mind. The people who wrote the new Testament were skilful psychological manipulators, they were out to create a personality cult, and they did so using every trick in the book, from faking historical credibility (Luke) to appealing to the supposed authority of the Old Testament (Matthew) to threatening everybody with hell (Matthew again). All you have done is fallen for one of its many tactics, the idea that it supposedly just rests on one principal, that of faith in Jesus and the resurrection. If that alone is the case why did Paul spent so much time wittering on about everything he had an opinion on? Why did the Gospels go to such lengths to emphasise certain theological perspectives or a seemingly irrelevant incident? Why is the Bible so damn long?

 

A bunch of very different people with a load a different ideas and agendas all get their shite crammed together, and included in all the crap is one line that tries to be minimalist. John Lennon may have said "all you need is love" but there is more to the Beatles legacy than that. Many denominations try to use this verse the way in was intended, as a way of controlling the complexities of humanity by appealing to lazy people who want everything in bite-size chunks for their tiny minds. But many others of the more fundamentalist or legalistic strain spend a lot of their time trying to emphasise that the Bible and their religion is more than just this verse. Especially considering many parts of Bible directly emphasise the importance of adherence to its many principles. In emphasising this one verse you're contradicting others, you are pleasing some denominations and annoying others, I would be more careful. This is just one of the many perspectives it offers, some denominations claim it has supremacy over the others, some don't, your opinion that it may do is based on nothing but agenda ridden assertions.

 

As to blame and crimes, after the church had been successful in the use of this verse, they had a load of followers who where credulous and easily controlled, such disasters as the crusades and witch hunts were inevitable. They believed every line regarding witches or demons, and became paranoid loons, left to their own devices they could only cause misery. Most of the time however they were under the influence of the church, with its own insidious machinations. Once you have fostered a culture of belief over rationality, you can do what you want with the people, be it uproot entire towns and send them over to the Middle East to commit genocide, or get them to shop their neighbours to the inquisition for half of their possessions. The problem is you fail to see the full implications of even this one verse. Faith itself is the problem. This one line alone is responsible for numerous atrocities, let alone all the others. There is barely a Bible quote you could give me that I could not directly attributed to specific crimes against humanity, I have done this with my debates with SOIL many times.

 

How does believing in the basics of this story in itself make you a better person? Or the world a better place? It didn't. Apart from the fact that it is unfair to only grant salvation to those who have heard and believe this story, as even 2000 years later there are still people who have not have the opportunity, you also forget what happens to people who do not not receive salvation, they spend the rest of eternity burning in hell, a concept unique to the New Testament, and Jesus's words. Even if I were to accept Romans 10:9 as the definition of Christianity, hasn't your curiosity ever prompted you to ask why the most important thing a human being can do is believe this part of the Gospels story? Isn't that rather odd? Seriously give it some thought.

 

I think it is what people go on from there to say, but not resting there alone.

 

What do you mean people? What about the rest of the New Testament let alone the Bible? This is just another type of picking and choosing. Don't you have to read rather a lot before you get to this part? Are you supposed to just pay attention to this one verse and ignore the rest of it? What about context, what about the biblical incidents this verse refers to? What about the fact that Jesus is presented throughout as a role model and teacher, isn't it inevitable that his teachings and actions will be taken very seriously? Even if you only look at Jesus's words alone as a source of a religion, there's enough there for a hundred Holocausts.

 

Jesus cannot be blamed for those crimes, but what people have done to twist their view of Jesus to justify those crimes.

 

No twisting is required. Jesus was a miserable little arsehole that probably would have approved of most of Christianity's atrocities done in his name. Luke 10:15 "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell." He displays continuous intolerance and anger at anyone who does not bow before him, compared to Buddha or Ghandi this guy was a raving psycho. Luke 16:19-31 "I am tormented in this flame." To Jesus it is fair for someone to be tortured in flames for ever just for having money, and for people who were miserable all their lives to go to heaven, this is a ridiculous position and yet essential to Jesus's teachings.

 

It's one thing to preach an egalitarian or communist message, it is another to suggest that rich or happy people should be tortured forever, while others rewarded for being poverty stricken or miserable. This kind of "balance" is crude and archaic, this kind of "fairness" may have appealed to the dejected or down and outs of ancient Greece, but only by pandering to their vindictive hatred of those better off, and their desire for some post-life socialist revolution. This is no different from when, during the Chinese revolution teachers and landowners were beaten, humiliated and sometimes just killed by the Maoist revolutionaries. It was a load of crap when Stalin applied it to this world, and I can't see how it would be much better in an afterlife. I would have thought the xtians would have got the message by now. Instead of learning from the realities of Communism that their teachings are barbaric and immoral, they try to use it to attack atheism! There is nothing inherent to atheism that leads to communism, it has no doctrines and no political or social positions, all that sucked most about communism was to be found in the Gospels, Marx himself would admit that.

 

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" again maybe he was being metaphorical, maybe not, but you can see where the church got it's inquisition and witch hunt's from. Not to mention the fact that he approved of many of the barbaric and unjust acts of God in the old Testament, (Luke 17:27 and 17:32) that most liberal xtian's try to ignore. In order to consider Jesus a decent person you have to do just as much picking and choosing as all other xtian's. And I haven't even got to Matthew yet. Mat 5:30 "And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, " etc this has cost many a man his penis. Then there's 10:21 which comes true many times, and has been so for the many ex-xtian's lives. I mean please 25:46 what a way to end a gospel, in some ways Jesus's teachings are even more barbaric than the Old Testament God's, at least he didn't tortured people for ever, just killed them. A lot.

 

And in Mark he was so screwed up he even told deliberately confusing parables so as to trick people into hell. (Mark 4:12 ) and criticised the Jews for not being as barbaric as Moses ( 7:9 ) Plus his sexism was worse than most fundamentalist retrogrades today. 7:27 or 10:29 or 13:17 or John 2:4. The worst may be John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." His own words allegedly, and how many suffered because of them? He may not have meant them literally, but the attitude is just as spiteful. There are plenty more I could quote but I suggest you simply read the Gospels for yourself. And there is far worse things in the rest of the Bible, you don't need to misquote or corrupt, it is there in black and white. The arguments xtian's often come up with a try and explain away god's atrocities or the Bible writer's obscene words renders them even more morally degenerate. I have seen apologists defence genocide and rape rather than have doubts concerning their God's moral standing, the idea that you have to "twist" anything be it Jesus's barbaric attitude or gods commandments in order to commit atrocities is naive and absurd.

 

So if blame can be placed on someone for being a figure that can be twisted, then I suppose he is a monster.

 

Of course I am not saying that Jesus was some sort of monster, he did not exist, however those who created the xtian cult and used his name to gain greater authority for their ideas were the monsters. They knew exactly what they were doing, modern cults today display all the same hallmarks, the same methods of control and seemingly ethical teachings that hide dangerous and violent results. Lenin preached a brotherhood of man, Jesus preached a brotherhood of man, communism killed millions, xtianity killed millions, there is absolutely no difference. They all start out as cults, they all sucked in the desperate and the credulous, they all emphasised faith in the ideal, and complete disregard for reality. They all teach suffering now for a better world later, be it the Russian peasant in the field, or the xtian "martyr ", it is all the same.

 

If it is perfectly acceptable to despise and point out the horrors of communism and Nazism, then why is it unacceptable to do the same for their parent ideology, and it's figurehead? His "innocent" teachings were not corrupted by later "worldly" church leaders, they always were designed so as to manipulate and terrorise. You can't just put it all down to the "wrong" interpretation, (your just reinterpreting to get Jesus off) especially as you seem to only selectively acknowledge his "words". He taught hell, he sprouted anti-Semitic language, he used violent "metaphors", he encouraged violent extremists (Zealots) to carry weapons, he performed cheap tricks at the cost of people's livestock and Flora, he encouraged blind faith and slavish obedience. Are you telling me that Christianity just happens to have been twisted and warped far more than any other religion in history, consistently and repeatedly throughout the ages in many different countries and denominations? Isn't it far more reasonable to suggest that it is because it's core principles, teachings and words of its "founder" are that much more reprehensible than any other religion? Seriously on balance of probability what do you think? Coincidence or not? There has to be some explanation for why the death toll is so high.

 

But I do not agree they are inherently dangerous or immoral.

 

What the hell it isn't dangerous about everyone being a sinner destined for hell unless they are converted? Not only is the danger of such ideas self-evident but also throughout history this has been used to legitimise torture and invasion. Facts not opinions back of my statements, you're ignoring both the implications and realities of Christian doctrine, all for the sake of sentiment as far as I can see.

 

Words on a page cannot have any roots in morality.

 

What are you talking about? We are talking about their effects, if a statement reads "kill people all the time" then how is that not immoral?

 

And interpretation of them cannot.

 

(Aside from the fact that my example sentence is self evidently immoral, or at the very least irresponsible) We are talking about Doctrines, these are more than just words, these are ideas, ideals, understandings of the world, attitudes, I'm not in pescribing moral status onto words printed on a piece of paper, these are the realities of organised religion, they may not be real, they may be subjectively derived, and they may exist in words but they still have a profound effect on humanity, and always for the worst. A state of mind is triggered by such doctrines, and a mind can be immoral. If the doctrines were created for that purpose, then the inherent immoral "effect" of such doctrines can be concluded.

 

What an individual or group of individuals do with those words can, but in and of themselves they cannot.

 

That is the whole point, "inherent" as in incapable of not causing harm when applied by and to humanity. These doctrines only have a reality because of humanity, and only an effect when used by humanity, so in that context they are inherently immoral. I'm not anthropomorphised these doctrines into evil creatures. I am using history and common sense to highlight the cost in human lives these ideas have wrought, because they were either intended to or at the very least designed to control and manipulate for cynical and exploitative purposes. Either way they were created by immoral people for immoral purposes, and have caused immense catastrophe.

In what conceivable way are these doctrines not tarnished by the reality of their inception and effects? I am speaking in terms of the purpose these doctrines were created for, used for, and continue to represent. These arn't just ideas fashioned by naive theologians to solve mystically interpreted social or ethical issues, these were made by ideologues and zealots so as to gain territory both in land and in lives. (See Joseph McCabe's "A history of the Popes") The problem is you're thinking in theistic terms, of things being inherently evil, or good according to some old-fashioned supernatural or mystical interpretation. I am using the term "inherent" in the way I thought most people would understand, clearly you do not.

 

They do not make you do something or think something in particular.

 

Of course they do, that's the whole purpose of religious doctrine. Dur.

Hence the emphasis on faith, the repetition of verses and quotes, and the authoritative tone. Those words were given to Jesus precisely because they were intended to make people to or think something. If nothing else the Bible was created in order to change people's lives, attitudes and actions. Are you saying that this never happens? When you threaten someone, when you bribe someone, when you appeal with sentiment and lies pretending to be higher truths or historical facts, what else are these words doing but affecting people's minds? That is what you intended to do, and the words were your tool for doing so, they were deliberately fashioned in such a way as to have that effect. If an immoral one then that can be said to be inherent to those words or ideas. The intention is an important factor in this case. But also the structure.

 

That should be obvious since there are so many different interpretations among the multitude of denominations.

 

What should be obvious is that they have many different ways of making you do or think something in particular! Besides your mainly talking about the peripheral elements. And even if someone read a doctrine designed to bring about immoral events, and is so naive or decent that they somehow do good with it, they are using the doctrine for a purpose other than the clear intent, their actions do not represent the doctrines general potential or original purpose. I could take line "pain is good " as some form of inspiration to invent a painkiller, but I'm being deliberately or subconsciously contrary to the message, in the same way someone may be able to use a medieval torture rack to cure someone's slipped disc, that device may in a sense have a infinitesimal potential to do good, but its purpose and overall implication is still immoral. I would not regard that exception as proof that the object lacks any moral dimension. Its may be harder to understand my position when an inanimate object is the example, but with words and ideas, my position is more understandable.

 

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.

 

And now we gets to the crux of the matter, you blame humanity because you have been affected by xtian doctrine which dictates we are all inherently sinful, and therefore anything that goes wrong is our fault not any beliefs we have, (particularly not the xtian ones, no wonder we can never pinpoint the source of such suffering, or at least you can't) Whereas as a Humanist I believe mankind is inherently good, and only becomes immoral when affected by external pressures, be it social, cultural, religious or ideological. Again see my posts on objective morality. If you're going to use Christian doctrine to defend Christian doctrine then you are no better than the seagulls we get. Circular reasoning, every theistic uses at least one fallacy in every argument they make, logic dictates that they cannot do otherwise.

 

Ultimately I'm afraid it is their beliefs alone, (that is the catalyst if not every contributing factor) although there where economic and political reasons for the crusades, ultimately they would not have happened if it wasn't for a theological yearning for Jerusalem. And what other possible factor could there have been for people all over Europe to systematically trial and burn alive tens of thousands of women (and gays and Jews and freethinkers) for centuries at a time? That kind of practised sadism does not come about through natural instincts, or anything other than a severely warped worldview, only to be found in religion or the particularly severe strains of political ideology. I have said this many times and have often demonstrated it quite thoroughly, but there is not one atrocity that Christianity has ever had a hand in that cannot be directly traced to specific doctrines or verses from the Bible. I can give you as many examples as you like. Without Jesus's teachings, without the Bible, and without the later doctrinal embellishments of the Christian Church 99% of all the horrors that have taken place within the last 2000 years would not have happened. That is a fact, and I defy anyone on this planet to disagree with me.

 

If it were, then all Christians everywhere would commit the same criminal acts, but they do not.

 

You forget the other factors at work. Our current imporved situation is purely due to the social and ethical improvements brought about thanks to the Enlightenment and other secular and progressive movements. If you study history you will find that it is only in the absence of more rational standards that the Church is able to commit its crimes, when Rome fell, when the Church gained control, that was when things were at their worst, it became reactionary in the Renaissance, and stubbornly backward during the 20th century, now it is simply deadweight, slowing down the inevitable progress of the world.

 

Overall, it has never done any good, and has always done harm, but there is always been another factor at work in this world, the forces of Reason, the forces that will inevitably win, for as we accumulate religiously derived errors, we will finally learn from them when they become too numerous, even if religion attempts to stop us. And when Christianity and every other screwed up ideology is dead, people will look back and realise that it had all been one horrendous waste of time. There is no decency or virtue in Christianity today, there never has been, it is purely as a result of secular values that you are capable of seeing only goodness in your Jesus's teachings, when both historically and biblically there is immorality aplenty. Your bias is a result of a decency that far surpasses the corrupting influence of the churches. In other words you are better than Christianity, more morally developed, not thanks to religion but society as a whole. It is only through ignorance, tradition and a habit you maintain a sentimental regard for Christianity. Misplaced loyalty is a cause of much liberal Christianity.

 

Are you telling me that for over 1000 years atrocities were committed on a daily basis all over Europe, because of something other than the power of faith and doctrinal supremacy? There was no other power, no other authority but the Church, no science no ethical teachings of a secular nature, no doubt or scepticism. Is it a coincidence that these secular factors come into play and the atrocities of Christianity lessen? Do seriously think your religion's (comparative) lack of atrocities today is due to any inherent goodness in your faith? Where was that inherent goodness during the past 1700 years?

 

There is a law against a burning people alive, there is a law against committing genocide, there is a law against persecuting Jews, gays and freethinkers, therefore it does not happen (much). You think a witchhunt couldn't happen again in the US today? Who made the laws of your country? Christians? Who make the constitution? Christians? The US is a product of the Enlightenment, that is why it has any degree of toleration at all, the laws are based on Saxon and Roman legal precedence, not Christian. Human, legal, and civil rights, equality, democracy freedom of worship, all these are not Christian values, they are what holds the tides of Christian horror at bay, but they'd start again in an instant if you're religious leaders have their way, or if they weren't modified by social realities into believing in these values as well.

There is a monster lurking in the heart of every Christian, it is there because it is in their doctrines and Bible, How else do you explain why a woman would stone her children to death, or a perfectly upright citizen would bomb on abortion clinic in the most developed country in the world? Bias on your part that prevents you from seeing what these events signify. Every argument you present I knockdown, every fallacy you use I highlight, you're wrong in every respect and I would like to change your mind. If not for your sake, then for humanities. Same goes every other xtian on this wonderful planet of godless Evolution and immutable natural laws.

 

So something about the individual has to be a factor.

 

Again how do you explain vast social movements such as the crusades or witchhunts which involved large numbers of people all obeying not just authorities but individual fears and desires, based on a worldview that was inherently xtian? Individuals can be corrupted, societies can be corrupted, continents can be corrupted, centuries can be corrupted. If you study all the facts of history, it's ebs and flows, its broader patterns, you'll see that where Christianity goes, there is always death suffering, and it is always due to the same kind of people and for the same reasons. No other religion has such a history, and all nations that come contact with it have dark periods in their past during its reign. My country has a lot to be proud of, but we are not proud of the civil war, our witchhunts, our part in the crusades, our persecution of Catholics during Protestant monarchies, our persecution of Protestants during Catholic monarchies, our persecution and expulsion of Jews during the reign of Edward I that created the prototype for the Holocaust.

 

These things were religiously derived, but at the same time we have much in our past to be proud of, our defeat of the Spanish Armada, are pirating of the plunder of the conquistadores, our challenge of the Catholic forces against Holland, our defiance of the divine right of kings, our removal of the Puritan despots, our Elizabethan tolerance which put the rest of Europe to shame. All these victories were against other religions who were even more immoral than we were. There is a reason why very few people in my country are really religious, it is called history. The US may mock us for living in the past, but it makes us a far better nation than they are. We learn from our mistakes and that of other nations, and that mistake is invariably religion. Any religious right movement tries to do to us what they're doing in the US, you see what happens.

 

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.

 

Human nature undoubtably plays a part, the question is, if this factor were left to itself would these atrocities still have happened? In every case the answer is no, although greed and fear are a part of such crimes, most people would not go against their own conscience without justification or least rationalisations. Mankind has an instinctive empathy and capacity for altruism, it takes a lot to cancel these out, a lot of conditioning a lot of dehumanising teachings. Yes the Church ordered the crusades, yes the witchhunts were fuelled by fear and paranoia. But who created the idea that Jerusalem was worth killing and dying for? Who created the idea of witches in the first place? Who created the fear of the dark skined heretic, the bearded Semite or the woman? Religious doctrine plays on our weaknesses, like all immoral regimes, the fascist, communist or theistic. They appeal to our worse natures, rather than with enlightened authorities which appealed to our better ones. They used our humanity against us, and against the church's enemies, but that does not mean that the our humanity was to blame, the institutions which ordered these crimes, and the doctrines which provided the justification and inspirations are to blame. They are the catalyst, they are the origin, they are the one factor that could be removed for the situations not to have arisen.

 

It can not be their theological beliefs alone.

 

Why not? You appear to be astoundingly obtuse. You think religion doesn't have the power to drive entire nations into genocidal frenzy? Did you even study history at school? Or did you sleep through 9/11? Religion isn't the tool for our human and emotional weaknesses, our humanity and emotions are the tools of religion. Cause and effect.

 

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 is just stupid. You don't just wake up one morning wanting to be a mass murderer, (unless you have a mental problem). These atrocities weren't just isolated incidents committed by a few nut cases, these were entire nations consenting to be a part in Holy Wars and mass slaughters. Are you saying it is an inherent feature of your average German to kill millions of Jews? Or did they just happened to do it when the Nazis were pumping ideological propaganda into them? Of course people can justify their actions anyway they want, and there are many people who do terrible things for no other reason them because they are terrible people, but this does not apply to the majority of humanity, and certainly does not explain why this pattern appears to occur whenever a religious or ideological tyranny is running things.

 

You seem to think crimes against humanity are some sort of average constant, occurring at regular intervals in every country no matter the religious belief. Check your facts Theists, your faith has way above and beyond the worst record going. Unlike Nazism and communism whose ideological bent brought about a specific series of atrocities, that where the inevitable results of both the ideology and tyrants in charge, your religion has consistently gone out of its way to kill as many people as possible, to persecute and corrupt tens of millions of people for over 1700 years, in as many different ways as you can possibly imagine.

It destroyed civilisations in South America, killed tens of millions in China, brought unimaginable suffering in Africa, killed most of the Native Americans, persecuted to death the philosophers and scientists that alone held up any civilisation in the West, created the European civil wars and religious persecutions that killed tens of millions for as far ranging reasons as Papal Estates and doctrinal differences, it created a lasting gulf between the West and the Middle-East that lasts to this day, its spread misery through its missionaries among indigenous communities both in terms of disease and ideology, it showed a hatred of women that borders on the pathological, it gave Nazi Germany a run for its money when it came to anti-Semitic persecutions, it inspired the likes of Ivan the Terrible to replicate the tortures of hell, it is gave Gays a fucking miserable time, and made freethinkers bloody annoyed, and is held back ethical and scientific progress in Europe by at least 1000 years.

 

Not bad for religion started by a nice guy called Jesus who just preached nothing but compassion and tolerance. Seriously why hasn't Hinduism or Buddhism got any of these crimes on its conscience? They are older! I mean even Islam has less to be ashamed of, Islam for Christ's sake! And it mainly spread through militarily conquest and the foetal-factory enslavement of women rather than conversion! This kind of discrepancy is more than just individual or natural flaws. You really need to think your arguments through more carefully, I could knock holes in them all day. And of course have done, as it's getting late.

 

(The Next day)

 

That does not make that story inherrently evil or immoral.

 

It does if you're a pig. Write a story about how Jews are evil and deserve to be punished, and sit back and watch what happens.

 

It would make me sick and twisted to do so, but that doesn't make the story as a whole sick and twisted.

 

You choose a deliberately benign story, and then wonder at how twisted you have to be to derive immoral motivations from it. I envy Theists, I wish I could use such dishonest tactics as that, that Lee Strobel is really onto a sweet deal, easy money. Whereas I actually have to do check my arguments for incorrect facts and fallacies, and that slows me down quite considerably. Luckily I'm actually right or I'd never be able to write anything! What if this story was how you should torture pigs all day? You seem to think the Bible doesn't have anything in it that's immoral in itself just open to misinterpretation, have you even read it? You're one of those Theists cursed with cognitive dissonance aren't you? Read it properly, then come talk to me.

 

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?

 

Err no.

 

Wait a minute, did you just agree with me?

 

The reason it is easier to justify horrible acts with the Bible, is because it justifies horrible acts! Don't tell me you haven't noticed us pointing out 1 sam 15 over and over again? Do you even read our posts? What is more probable, that there just happens to have been millions of people over hundreds of years who all turned to xtian doctrine more than any other ideology to justify their atrocities, or that there is something inherent to the cult that spawns such conditions in people, and easily lends itself to such interpretations? For a while I have been looking for this cause, all the while wondering whether it was just a coincidence, or human nature, but only by twisting mankind's inherent ethical tendencies and ignoring the records of all other religions can that conclusion be reached.

 

I don't think it being a common attitude means it isn't flawed.

 

That is not what I was suggesting, I know better than to use that fallacy, I am just pointing out that reason and the facts have led many people to independently come to the same conclusion.

 

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.

 

Yes a great many either in the Bible or directly inspired by it, at least in the West. We could look aghast at the human sacrifice of the Aztecs, or the mutilation of women's feet in ancient China, but these are isolated cultural developments that are imposed due to tradition and/or religion. If these were continued today, and spread by missionaries to every "corner" of the globe, I'd moan my arse of about them, like I do with you bollocks, and why not? The same kind of patriarchal or theocratic authorities were responsible, as we find in the xtian Church, but what interests me about xtianity in particular is that it has spread all over the world, and never once does it refrain from committing either the same or new kinds of atrocities. It is this consistency of immorality that leads me to conclude that it is inherent in the core beliefs of your religion. Putting it all down to cultural or ethical relativism does not quite cover the facts.

 

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.

 

It is less flawed due to the fact that it is not based on fallacy or belief, but more reliable standards of proof that can be verified by everybody else, and don't rely on subjective bias to be excepted. As I said I am not relying on the fallacy of authority, I am demonstrating reason's tendency to unite independent minds to the same conclusion. I am pointing to the conclusion that the facts invariably leads to. I don't need their conclusions to back up mine, rational and empirical methods are what leads me to my position, as it does for them, and if you would use the same methods you would come to the same conclusion. The belief that the Bible is "written by God" is just that, a belief, based on absolutely nothing. However the "authorities" I mentioned used the same methods I did and found the same thing. I don't need their conclusions to come to my own. I have the same tools they do, the same data, and have confirmed it independently. That is the point I'm trying to make, that the rational agree on this.

 

You are mistaking the scientific method for a religious dogma, like many Theists you are incapable of imagining that any other position could be based on any other method but your own. In other words you are imposing your flaws onto our research. Science and reason are not a religion. These other freethinkers don't just declare something and I believe it, I did not become aware that they had come to the same conclusion till I had already done so. I identifyed that they agree with me because reason and empiricism always lead you to the same inevitable conclusions, same as in logic and mathematics. The facts are the facts, and an unbiased reading of them is all I ask others to do, they do not need to believe me or my "authorities" but merely have to find out for themselves. You have clearly never used Reason to investigate anything, otherwise you would know what I am talking about. You are like a creationist who calls "Evilution" a religion. I find this a very irritating tendency among Theists.

 

I didn't mean to imply that I felt it was morally neutral. But I believe the question of morality exists outside of religion

 

 

Neutral is just another way to put it.

 

Anyway why? If religion does not have a moral dimension and then nothing does. I of course disagree with the claim that religion and morality are synonymous, nonetheless religion still has an ethical effect on humanity, even if it is to negate ethics.

 

 

Okay let's sort out the whole "inherent immorality" thing again, a doctrine is more than just words. The statement "you are saved only by believing in a, b and c" is always accompanied with various things to make people intolerant, close minded, elitist, absolutist and blind to all reality. Inherent means in this context that such a doctrine will inevitably cause harm to others to a greater or lesser extent, in other words any one of the doctrines I listed will when presented as something that must be believed in and obeyed, will invariably cause humanity to turn against itself. Every time they have been applied this has happened, therefore this is reasonable conclusion. Not always so as to kill millions but so as to cause harm, the lack of exception to this rule makes it "inherent" because the doctrine consists not just of statements but of commands, threats, promises and examples that foster inhumane attitudes. A message of exclusivist snobbery and intolerance can do no good in this world, therefore it is inherently immoral. I've tried to make my case is clear as possible.

[- AUB -]

2

 

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."

 

You may disagree with the idea that Christianity is immoral, after all that is the conclusion and needs to be backed up by reasoning that you may disagree with, but a doctrine's negative effect on humanity is not up for debate, it is simply a matter of fact, if "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" gets tens of thousands of women killed what is there to disagree with? If all or many of these doctrines have a negative effect on humanity, (which is simply a matter of observing their effects, or are you disagreeing with the empirical method?) then I can be claim Christianity has immoral elements, that is perfectly rational, and based on solid facts, what is the problem?

 

Why? Because there is not a single "doctrine" or school of thought in modern day Christianity.

 

I never said there was, you are straw manning my argument. When I say xtian doctrine is evil, I am referring to the "doctrines" plural, as everyone knows there is more than 1. The Christian denominations today all have doctrines in common, and doctrines that are unique to them. I could quite easily demonstrate that they are all immoral, but that is not what I am have done here. I've dealt with the central and most common doctrines, and yet you keep repeatedly trying to get the religion off by bringing up the variety of doctrinal opinion, despite the fact that does not have any effect on the status of the doctrines themselves. If I demonstrate that a certain doctrine is immoral, and then even if it is only shared among 34 percent of the denominations, then at least that 34 percent have a problem, you appear to be trying to simply confuse the issue.

 

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.

 

Again I have dealt with this, the two largest denominations contain all the doctrines I have previously specified. A general statement of ethical effects does not have to cover 100% of the subject, if I can debunk Catholicism and Protestantism then that will be enough for me, as least for now. The problem is, and I've noticed this among many Theists, is you don't think 4 Dimensionaly. One does not judge a subject entirely by its current state, but by how it has behaved historically, and how it will do so in future. Up until the recent subdivisions, xtian doctrine was pretty much the same in each of the three main branches, these new denominations have many different interpretations of Scripture, practices, attitudes, and degrees of extremism, however you have not shown that they lack any of the doctrines previously laid out.

 

I am not arguing simply against Christianity "at this point in time" but the faith over all, I argue for general effects, and as Joseph McCabe pointed out, it is pretty dire, whereas all Christians can do in response is point out the exceptions as if that proved anything to the contrary. You are being myopic if you think the "here and now" is all that matters, I do not intend to be caught napping by organised religion, or end up being lulled into complacency just because it is currently not as immoral as it once was, and in all probability will be. The danger is still there, and as I've previously stated it is largely due to external social pressures that these inherently immoral doctrines are not being put into full effect.

 

I think taking historical examples alone isn't a way to arrive at something's inherrent morality either.

 

That is not what I did, I pointed out to these doctrines remain in place throughout Christendom, and pointed today historical effects as proof of my reading of them. My conclusions are based on history, my warning is based on the fact that the cause of these atrocities is still in existence, or to put it scientifically my conclusion is the theory, history is the laboratory results, and in science experiment outweighs theory every time. You can try to explain away these atrocities if you like, but saying that history should not be the basis for which a ideology is judged, is like saying we should give Nazism another chance, and that the Second World War and the Holocaust do not represent its innate potential. But Holocaust denial is something neo-Nazis do much better than Christians, they have a better handle on the necessary fallacies. The ones you use are nowhere good enough.

 

Because someone else can come along and provide examples of how Christianity is "good."

 

As I said, the exceptions, never the rule. Freethinking historians have had to deal with this phenomenon a great many times, no matter how many tens of thousands of atrocities are listed, no matter how many millions of people were involved, some idiot always brings up St Francis of Assisi. You are missing the point, there is a reason that these things happened, you can't just put them all down to human nature as that does not fit the facts. Nor can you use the good to negate the bad. This is not a balancing act, you cannot breed 6 million people and claim you have negated the Holocaust.

 

Nobody judges history's worst dictatorships by what "good" they did, Hitler's reputation in our society is not based on his capacity to rejuvenate the German economy, but on the far greater evils he committed, and even if he did far more good, it would never make up for the bad would it? Religion needs to answer for its crimes, we also need assurance that they will not happen again. Neither of these things have ever happened. You have not provided me with one reason to think they won't, just demonstrated how far you're prepared to go to dodge responsibility on behalf of your cult. Which is what I would expect from xtian, as avoiding responsibility has always been one of its "perks".

Seriously what you want us to do, just ignore Christianity's past?

 

Sure it is much easier to look at the Inquisition or something and think "Look, it is bad stuff, the whole lot."

 

Are you admitting that it is harder to find examples of good xtian behaviour than bad ones?

 

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.

 

Pardon? Do you mean "as good things" in which case there are some who have been so corrupted by their belief that they would. And there are those would like very much to bring an Inquisition of sorts back, you know the type of people I mean. Every good example of xtian behaviour is either due to inherent goodness in the individuals, selfish desires as a result of doctrinal corruption, or deliberate posing. If you need to be threatened or bribed to do good, you're not an example of moral decency.

 

And nobody needs to be "told" by some Jesus character that it is advisable to be nice to people. Those few of Jesus's teachings that were not obnoxious were so obvious as to be redundant, not to mention the fact that they are to be found in virtually every other philosophy and religion. Ultimately many doctrines in Christianity do harm, and those that are good are not in any way unique to the faith, and are mostly negated by those other less desirable doctrines, conclusion, in general it sucks, and you'd be better off with virtually any other philosophy. How I love to reiterate. Just choose one you agree with that lacks the side-effects. Especially the ones even you don't attempt to deny. Seriously I could never join a religion with such a past, even if I agreed wholeheartedly with its "founder". I take history seriously, it takes more than a bunch of lame arguments to wipe it away. It deserves a more sincere appraisal. I consider my reaction to xtianity in proportion to its past, that is all. Anything less would be inhuman indifference.

 

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.

 

That just betrays your tendency to act like sheep, doing good or bad because everybody else does, without thinking of the moral consequences as individuals. A slavish attitude will occasionally do good, but that does not changed the fact that being a ethical or behavioural slave is an inherently bad thing. To the mindless is to be a amoral, as ethics requires choice You cannot take credit for the good, nor can the institution, but it can be criticised for bringing such a situation about.

Xtainity is no ethical system, as it takes away any possibility of moral individualism by teaching that we are all inherently sinful, and that we need to be obedient believers first, moral second . As a result you have a bunch of mindless drones entirely at the whim of whatever Pastor or Vicer is currently in charge. It's potluck, maybe you'll get a good church leader, maybe a very bad one, In an area of crusades and witchhunts, you have a ready-made community of participants for such atrocities, in a more enlightened (not due to xtianity of course) period you have them doing good, because they are expected to, as Christianity's reputation is unjustifiably positive. They are simply following larger forces and are symptoms of era, not the faith itself.

 

You can't just judge xianity by its current behaviour, it does not in any way represent what it has been like over the last 1900 years. It was never a force for good, but a force of control and violence. It's current "reformed" state does not impress me one iota, because I see beyond such superficial changes, and would be much happier if people did good for itself, rather than because they want something. I like to see people help others, but I would rather know they did it because of their own innate decency, or because of belief in a moral philosophy, than because they were following the crowd or exhibiting a rare glimpse of decency in a religion with greater potential for harm than any other that has ever existed. You see the immediate, I see the broader realities. Humanity does not need excuses to do good, they need excuses to do evil, your faith does not deserve any credit for any good done today, but most definitely deserves to be recognised for it's hand in all the bad. That is my position taken it or leave it.

 

Both sides feel that they are doing so for God and because of God.

 

Which is a bad reason to do anything.

 

The very idea that you have to do everything because some "sky boss" tells you to is in itself highly ethically questionable. Wise people had been pointing out the flaws in this arrangement for centuries before xianity reared it's ugly head. God is the ultimate justification for everything, and can be used to commit any deed, regardless of ethical consequences. But as commonsense dictates you don't need a god to be good, (or bad,) on balance it is far more likely that immeasurable good will come about through human nature, than immeasurable bad, whereas belief in God can only make you do so much good, whereas the evil it can produce is virtually infinite. It only takes a small group to commit any genocide, where is it takes an entire nation of givers to wipe out poverty, which is why it has never happened, the whole idea doesn't work. Do lunch wagons really make up for the crusades? Besides an xtian's definition of good is also highly questionable, while one of the worst evils you could commit is genocide, and plenty of Godly folk have done that, the ultimate good is often seen as proselytisation, or obeying the church, which in my book in the very opposite of good. Any examples of xtian good you give me would be pathetic compared to the evils.

 

So that also shows that Christianity cannot be naturally negative, but again what people do WITH it that is negative.

 

No it does not, and your use of the term "naturally" needs to be clarified. You also forgetting that they are, in all probability using different doctrines or Bible verses to justify their actions. If you have 20 versus, 10 of which make people do evil and 10 which make them doing good, then pointing to the 10 used to do good cannot have any bearing on the 10 that are bad. People aren't using the same doctrines to do different things, they are interpreting their faith's focus or emphasis and selectively quoting the Bible, (when they are being individualistic, which is rare) but most are simply following the status quo for that denomination at that time.

 

If they choose to avoid the unpleasantness of the old Testament, or the appalling words of the gospel Jesus, and focus on trying to selectively quote the Bible in order to do good, then that is avoiding the problem, not negating it. Point to a doctrine that has been used to justify atrocities, and also used to encourage charity or tolerance. The fundamentalists always have more Bible quotes to hand than the moderates. Doesn't that tell you something? I could use Mine Kampf to start a Meals on Wheels service, that does not change the general tone of the book. Yes I look at all the different uses people put the Bible to, but I also read its contents, it's plain meaning, and judge which behaviour is more representative of the Bible over all. As well as of deserve the general effect.

 

There is genocide and rape in there, so when xtian's commit genocide and rape I don't have to look too far for the reason, and even if I put the decent xtian's actions down to the "compassionate" parts of the Gospels, that does not deal with the far more severe ethical consequences of such a book. It would be much better if they got their justifications for decency out of a book which didn't contain ten times more justifications for immorality. You shouldn't have to do "dig" or "sift" or suffer cognitive dissonance when looking for examples of decency or wise and moral teachings. Is it too not ask to be part of a ethical system without all that blood on its hands, and does not need a psychological phenomena in order to regard it as all good?

 

You may object to my terms such as "inherent" and "totally" to describe the dangers within xianity and the Bible, but that does not change the fact that there are many terrible things within it, and many more terrible things have been done in its name. Caution and the very least is called for, if not complete condemnation. Yet you would not even call for that, which I consider very irresponsible. Even if my "extreme" views were only partially correct, your view that xianity should be encouraged or that Jesus was a decent person is far more indefensible. If the decent exceptions disapprove my "rule", then certainly the examples of Jesus's horrible ideas, or xianity's history show that your view is far from reasonable.

 

And yes, I agree there have been larger and more numerous occasions of people feeling called by God to do bad than good.

 

Yay! Now we are getting somewhere.

 

And in this day and age we certainly focus a lot more on the negative of everything.

 

Xtians don't, you guys completely ignore all the negative, and elevate the positive to a ridiculous degree. (Regarding your religion anyway) Are you saying it's bad to be sceptical or dismiss things because they do harm? I would consider that responsible, not a lamentable sign of the times.

 

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?

 

It depends on the circumstances, if the bad does so because of a mental problem, or the good does so because of an inheritance nature that actually fails to correspond with the congregation's overall immoral tendency, then it does not prove anything other than the variation to be found in the human race, regardless of uniform conditioning. This particular kind of hypothetical situation lacks the details to be meaningful. There are many possibilities, many explanations, some support my position, none that I am aware of contradict it. And best all it supports is the idea that the Bible is infinitely malleable, in which case it is not a standard, inflexible or otherwise.

 

Are the good ones not "true" Christians?

 

There are no such things as "true" xtian's, there are merely those who represent the overall trend and those who don't. The degree to which an individual is a product of their religion can be determined by how much doctrine they used to inspire them, whether their religious deeds goes against their fundamental ethical nature, (as xtian's were often made to go against their conscience in order to execute the churches will) or what that nature is, and their motives, (as that is a fundamental part of their true ethical status, you can't just judge it by their actions). It is very difficult to evaluate without a complete psychological profile. It is also difficult to evaluate whether they are being "good" by anything other than objective moral standards, which you do not possess, therefore our definitions of good xtian would be different. I argue from my perspective, you from yours, therefore convincing me using your perspective isn't really going to work. While all I can do is attempt justify my perspective from which I derive my position. I could give you a quick rundown of objective morality, but it would be a significant diversion.

 

But to recap, a good xtian is either motivated by inheritant nature, which the Church denies, selfish desires in which case they are not good, or sheepish obedience, none of these contradict my position. I doubt anyone has ever truly been inspired by Jesus's words to do good, because to do so they would have had to selectively quote to begin with (like you), in which case they have a previous ethical agenda. (derived from nonreligious sources) And if they are only aware of the good bits, after being selectively "quoted at", then they are a product of that denomination's conditioning not xtian doctrine or the Bible. Just one priest's view of it. They are then ignorant , not "true xtian", if they are completely oblivious to the majority of the Bible's contents, and have been largely deprived of most doctrine, then they are a product of culture or upbringing and any good they do can hardly be down to anything other than a very filtered down or generally unrepresentative version of xtianity. (I guess it all depends on how diluted it has to be before you will not define it as "xtian") Your standards I suspect would be elastic in order to try to claim as many good people as possible, no matter how loose a connection they may have to their church or your Jesus. But of course with bad people, restrictive. (At least that's the trend we observe)

 

They are the type that would be surprised by our quotes of the Bible's "bad parts", they'd be surprised by my quotes of Jesus's words, they'd be unaware of many of the ethical implications of the doctrines that have not been taught to them. If you get out of being corrupted by xtianity's immorality by being completely ignorant of it, then my point remains. Their decent behaviour is no more a reflection of Christianity, then the decent behaviour of your average Sri Lankan Buddhist. Both are ignorant of xtian doctrine, both are not a product of it, and both are unlikely to do harm. (Unless corrupted by a similarly immoral ideology) If you take all the complete Bible, if you accept all the doctrines whatever denomination you are in, then I will show you an immoral person. I have done this with the fundies we get here, and the apologists. In other words the less xtian you are, the less immoral due to it's influance. If something is inherently immoral, then the various degrees to which you are exposed to which would result in various degrees of immorality.

 

If a person does not know, believe or accept any xtian doctrine, then they are not a reflection of its ethical nature or effects. Also you need to ensure your judgment is not superficial, I can show you a seriously religious xtian, who appears to be perfectly decent, yet I can delve deeply into their minds and expose a severe lack of ethical consistency.

Otherwise moral people can be forced to defend Hells' eternal tortures, genocide in the Bible, the elitist and snobbish attitude of the early Church, apostolic communism, and many other elements to which their acceptance of means they have to play fast and loose with their morality. Which rather than being a constant is interchangeable for their ideology, as the two are incompatible. Take the late Pope's humanitarian work and compare it to his willingness to allow millions to die of Aids in Africa rather than allow them to use contraceptives. Even the most seemingly moral xtian has a severe ethical flaw in there somewhere, or they are completely oblivious to most of what makes xtianity such a threat.

 

Well again, you have to make the claim as to morality's absolutism or relativism.

 

Well again, you slip into a false dichotomy.

 

You seem to be in favor of the absolute.

 

no, No nO NO! Stop with this "absolute" crap already! You are still thinking like a theist, I can't debate with anyone in such a terrible mental rut without going round in circles. You want to stand a chance in hell with me in a debate, you have to stop thinking like a xtian, it is the one guaranteed way to lose to me or any other rationalist.

 

But again, we have Christians in the same group, holding to the same basic doctrine that behave in contradictory ways.

 

You repeat yourself, I get the idea. People can interpret doctrine in different ways, it does not change its overall effect on humanity, nor on its potential, which being so far in one particular ethical direction, that it constitutes an "inherent" ethical state. Their interpretations would depend on their prior ethical values, in which case the use that the doctrine in question would be put to is a reflection of that person not that doctrine. If a person has been influenced by secular values, they will use it in decent wages oblivious to it's danger, if they had been influenced by the plane reading of that doctrine, or by the other doctrines, or by the overall effect xtianity has on people, then they will use it to do harm. Cause and effect. I base a view of a doctrine on its plain meaning, its writer's intentions, and its overall effect, I do not need to take into account every conceivable interpretation as that is more a product of the interpreter not what is being interpreted.

 

Each one believes they are on the moral high ground and the other is not.

 

When both are xtians neither have any right to call themselves moral at all.

 

So I don't think that one can say Christianity is involved in morality but outside of it.

 

A bit of a stretch. Is Nazi ideology inherently immoral? If you do not consider it so then clearly our disagreement is down to your odd definition of what is capable of being morally judged. Morality derives from humanity, humanity creates certain ideas, certain values, certain examples and certain concepts, some are false, some misrepresent the truth, some are true and some suck so much that a detrimental effect is inevitable. Ladies and gentlemen and give you xtian doctrine.

 

Granted, I don't think we disagree on the inherentness of morality so this is pretty moot.

 

You wona bet?

 

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.

 

None of the them to do that is the problem. Although there is a popular misconception that Heaven and Hell are determined by one's ethical status, it is purely a control mechanism designed by cult leaders for the cult. The emphasis on morality is a modern urban myth, kinda like Jesus himself, who is a ancient urban myth

 

But that gets into the discussion of a fear based or rewards based religion- or neither.

 

No it doesn't, they suck, simple as that. A total insult to all humanity.

 

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.

 

And their effects. I am looking at this empirically as well as psychologically, either way the diagnosis is not good.

 

 

But I don't think that is the point of Christianity.

 

Don't you? Well it is certainly a significant factor, and one of the primary control mechanisms used by the cult leaders when it first started. My view of xtianity is of a self-serving institution, designed to swallow up and continually manipulate as many people as possible, that is it's sole purpose, consolidation and the spread of control. The rest is window dressing. You may have fallen for its claims, but I can read between the lines. If you study modern cults today, those which even you would recognise where insidious and cynical attempt to exploit those on the margins of society, you would eventually come to recognise early Christianity (and versions today), its stories, teachings and doctrines.

 

I'm going to stick with your definition of a Christian for a moment.

 

Carry on...

 

But they see Jesus as perfect and without sin.

 

Firstly, only those with cognitive dissonance when reading the gospels would think Jesus was perfect, and secondly of course he was without sin, we all are! Sin is an invented theological concept. They invented the problem then offered the solution, Jesus. They don't see it's just one doctrine propping up another. An endless cycle of lies.

 

To them, that would be a moral man.

 

Again confusing a theology with morality. Morality is real, theology is bunk. If you define morality in purely theological terms it's no wonder you're incapable of having ethical values.

 

They also feel that part of their journey as a Christian is to become more Christ-like, basically to be sin free.

 

If the world is full of assholes trying to be like him, no wonder it's in a mess.

 

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.

 

No, he was just invented to gain followers for someone else. +Plus understanding and xtianity are mutually exclusive. Besides even if he didn't have all of alterior motive's coming out of his ears, xtians all without exception do. Besides he knew as God that he had everything sewn up, he could go to heaven any time he wanted and stay out of Hell indefinitely, an omnipotent does not make a very realistic or practical role model.

 

Besides even according to the gospels, converting and "spreading the word" was a significant part of what he did, it is not to much of a stretch to conclude these were some of his motives. He didn't just die to save us, he died so that we would know that he died, so he died in order to get us to believe it happened. Anyway I digress. If he didn't have the motive to gain followers, then we wouldn't need to believe he die to save our sins, he would just have died, then saved our sins, all of us, not just those who believed he did. That's always seemed a bit suspicious to me, he went through all that to save us from hell, but attached a condition to it. Xtian's may say "is it too much to ask that we be grateful and acknowledge what he did?" But I would reply yes, for many cannot possibly have ever known, and many cannot know now, do they deserve Hell? Asking us to believe isn't just a reasonable payment for a favour, it is a way of avoiding an infinitely bad fate, any humane being would save us from it anyway, without demanding conditions which most of humanity cannot possibly meet. Anyway even if you don't believe in that salvation/God crap he still had other motives.

 

They see Jesus as a man who would see a situation that needed fixing and he would fix it-

 

Kinda like a carpenter!

 

not because he could get something from it, but because it needed to be fixed.

 

After he as God created the problem in the first place, through sloppy workmanship. I'd have fired his arse, and got someone else. Not much of a fixer anyway, making a religion that causes even more problems. Or do you think the world is better off?

 

(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).

 

Those "Christians" can see what the hell they like, it doesn't change the situation. If anything their tendency to be completely wrong shows that the opposite is probably true.

 

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?

 

It depends on your interpretation of Jesus, he is an impossible standard to reach, (like the vigin mother for women) we as humans will always have weaknesses and self interested motives. We cannot possibly behave the way he allegedly did as we are not God, if you're going to have a role model try to have someone who couldn't do everything. (And in attempting to replicate miracles such as faith healing, many people go without proper medicine, and what about walking on water, what kind of example is that supposed to be?) His actions in the gospels may have appeared superficially human, but his psychology would have been derived from his nature, one we cannot ever approach. What you describe, apart from being a bit of a stretch, is an extremely badly thought out explanation for the xtian motive. Xtain ethics aren't presented simply as "the right thing to do" they're always presented as commandments, or as (in the case of the gospels) examples to blindly follow, or arbitrary dictates. You do this or that because Jesus did, you do this or that because God says so. That is blind authoritarianism, not autonomous morality.

 

This is as far removed from ethics by any rational standard as you can get. Jesus was following a predetermined plan, what good did he do for its own sake? Parables and miracles, what kind of behavioural standard is that? It all so rapped up in theological complications for any decency like you describe to come out of it. There may be xtian's who interpret it this way, but that's still leaves us with a standard of behaviour that is reprehensible, not to mention the doctrines, which regardless of how much emphasis you place on Jesus as an example, still permeate throughout the gospels and the new Testament.

 

Do you really have to get all your modes behaviour from one guy? Isn't that rather narrow minded, surely there are other examples to follow? Not to mention the fact that a series of clearly defined and realistic ethical standards are found lacking in any part of the old or new Testaments. Are the "heroic" deeds of a personality the only way to be moral? Or even the best? It is a rather limited and backward way to be ethical, even if Jesus did do anything comprehensively moral. A few words here, a few actions here, how does not cover every conceivable moral activity humanity could ever take part in? An insufficient standard of ethics.

 

And isn't that, in time, getting rid of the obstacles to morality?

 

The primary obstacles to morality in this world is religion, and it always has been. The self-serving political and theological ideologies of this planet have always thrived by negating morality, so is to leave themselves unrestricted and to turn their followers into conscience-less slaves. You indefinitely lose me here, the obstacles to morality are at times human nature, but most of the time they are other goals, other agendas. A moral philosophy is one that recognises the supremacy of ethics even above itself, no religion or political ideology does this. Only very few philosophies have ever achieve this level of enlightenment, and xtianity comes nowhere close. It is because Christianity is an obstacle to morality that I oppose it, that is the whole point, if you're suggesting that by being an obedient slave to Jesus you're somehow achieving this aim, your circuitous reasoning escapes even me.

 

So ultimately, to them, it is about getting to genuine morality instead of doing what is right because someone tells you it is right.

 

What else would you call religion but "moral" values handed down on tablets of stone, or doctrinal verses to be disobeyed at your eternal peril, or at the very least punishment at the hands of a church inquisitor? It is precisely because the "values" of religion are not in any way ethical but instead simply the cultural taboos and opinions of long dead men and dead civilisations that I declare religion to be without moral values. No matter that they have managed to pass these archaic and barbaric value systems off as "morality" it is self-evident that these don't match morality by any rational standards, and even when they have been modified by social progress, they are still dragging behind the rest of us. The only reason people are willing to follow clearly backward values is because of a stubborn belief in a deity and absolutism, you can't credit your faith with being able to solve problems it is the sole source of in todays society. That's just stupid, where do you get this stuff from?

 

Even if these psudo-ethical values weren't backward they are still often overwhelmed by the out-right un-ethical doctrines. My position to me seems very coherent, and I have yet to have any one poke any holes in it. I don't see how you are made your case at all. The last sentence was totally ad hoc. You claim religion the way to avoid precisely the ethical dilemma it always brings about. You honestly think xtianity doesn't encourage obedience over ethical behaviour for its own sake? What planet you living on? I cannot think of a single religion which de-emphasises ethics and substituted it with ideology more than a xianity. I may not have previously detailed this phenomenon, except in earlier essays, but I have noticed its many times. It is precisely because people obey because they are ordered, and "genuine morality" is never achieved by Theists that I have gone from being suspicious of their ethical pretensions to regarding Theists as amoral due to the immoral doctrines which stripped them of ethics. Telling me it does the very opposite, through very weak reasoning isn't going to change my mind. Especially as it does not change the facts, no amount of argument will do that.

 

Because something can be used as a tool of evil doesn't make it immoral because of its effects.

 

No just dangerous or irresponsible to have in certain circumstances. One may question why someone would use a tool with constantly bad effects. Plus it doesn't mean it isn't either.

 

Guns murder people, they aren't inherently immoral.

 

We are not talking about inanimate objects here, but ideas, words and concepts forming doctrinal structures, worldviews, paradigms that consistently abuse humanity. We are talking about the conscience creations of human beings, and if our actions can be judged ethicaly, why not our words or inventions, if a scientist's invention can be regarded as immoral if it is designed purely to mutilate or torture, then why not ideas created for that purpose? If I'd created a religion designed to foster slavish obedience to my words, and I then issues such commandments as "people we red hair should be be-heading" I am immoral for saying such a thing, and the words are a conscious immoral creation. Your analogy, like all Theistic analogy is completely inappropriate, and also another fallacy, your sixth I believe. If a man does terrible and violent things, and is then offered as an example, then he is an immoral example. If someone teaches immoral things, thieving, murder and rape, then those teachings as well as that person can be considered immoral, in their affects and in their intentions. I cannot make it any clearer.

 

Authoritarian forms of communism can cause harm, but that does not make communism itself inherently immoral.

 

No, just a bad idea

There are other elements in communism that makes it immoral, (or at the very least dangerous and irresponsible) such as absolutism, utopianism, violent revolution and the many other elements in its shares with a xianity. It has doctrines, these like a xianity's have a detrimental effect on humanity, and I consider them immoral in that they have no regard for life, place ideology ahead of ethics (and as I have previously stated negating ethics is in itself unethical) and creating dehumanising labels, "counterrevolutionary", "bourgeois" etc. Very similar to unbeliever, heathen, godless, witch, faggot, jew, infidel, Satanists, and all the other terms religions use to pick out those worthy of persecution. The ethical status of communism itself is not under debate, although many do consider it inherently immoral, and that is an understandable position. However I like to focus on those specific elements that lead to so many atrocities, (not unique to it and they need to be recognised in other institutions), as I have done with your religion. It is the main focus of much of my studies, to peel away the layers of dogma and history to discover what makes an ideology tick, and what specific concepts and principles to the most harm. I have found them in Communism, Nazism, Islam and a Xianity, these four above all else contain more doctrines of an inhumane nature than any other. Hence the disproportionate amount of dead they all have on their records. You cannot absolve these institutions from all blame, and you have to admit that there is something about these worldviews that seem to cause misery among so many.

 

Is it a coincidence that both Lenin, Stalin and Mao was such monsters? Or are the opportunities for monstrous behaviour magnified due to the kind of situation communism creates? I have studied communist or communal systems in obscure tribes, and in ancient examples of it, (Acts) and it does not appear to have gone so horribly, (although Acts 5:1 doesn't half remind me of the Maoist campaign against anyone with money, and violent redistribution of wealth) it may be due to its post-industrial and less innocent setting, but most likely because of its xtian like attitude regarding itself as the end that justifies all means, and its promises outweighing any reality. Communism is not an innocent exercise in social engineering, any more than xianity, it is an umbrella term for a family of doctrines and views many of which are inherently immoral, such as dehumanisation, by their self-evident nature and in their affects which have been consistently observed to occur without fail at every opportunity.

 

The view that some "races" are superior to others is immoral, that rich people should be deprived of their possessions and bullied is immoral, and that anyone who do not believe a certain thing should be tortured forever is immoral, etc etc. Certain ethics and legal standards state that it is wrong or immoral the view or treat people a certain way, and immoral to incite such treatments and attitutes. In the UK you cannot print and distribute racist material, why not if the words themselves where not arguably immortal? If an example is moral, and a teaching, or idea, then why not the oppasite? If jesus's teaching where not regarded by you as moral, then you wouldn't have him as your role model, well surely other examples and teachings can be immoral then? If these are presented as doctrines, then... You see where I'm going. Often a teaching becomes a doctrine and a doctrine a teaching.

[- AUB -]

3

 

Plus, I doubt the creators of Chrsitianity were Machiavellian enough to create what you feel they did intentionally.

 

I can back that up with as many dissections of new Testament verses as you could possibly what. I can show you what has been under your nose all along, I do it every time someone quotes the N.T at me, especially Paul. I am trying to keep this short so I will save that for later

 

Perhaps I don't give them enough credit? hehe.

 

He he, laugh it off. Meanwhile the human race has had to pay the price for such Machiavellian elements, if you are naive enough to read the Bible and not to see what they were up to, then I suggest you read my previous essays on this issue. You Theists either claim they were all knowledgeable and wise, or claim they were too innocent to do such a thing, inconsistant. You really think they weren't capable of fashioning such an insidious mind control cult? They were not stupid, dishonest and incompetent in the realm of academics and Jewish doctrine maybe, but they knew what they were doing,

 

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?

 

It's about potential effects and initial intentions, the implications of the atom bomb where abvious, but Einstein was not a malicious or inhumane person, quite the opposite, he was a pacifist who nonetheless recognised the severe threat Nazism posed to all that was decent in the world, a position I have myself. So although his atomic theories were not themselves immoral, the implications and potential could be channelled in a direction which could only cause catastrophe. Although I believe the long-term effects of the two atom bombs dropped on Japan were positive, both for the world and even for the Japanese, immorality played a part. Benign equations culminated in a person dropping a bomb he knew would kill innumerable people in. That act was immoral, even by the standards of war given that all the victims were civilians, and the responsibility is shared among all those involved in its development. Nonetheless a greater good can be said to have been served.

 

The point I am making is that I recognise the chain of cause and effect alternates within the spectrum of ethical concerns and in this case went from good to bad to good. There was nothing inherently immoral about atomic theory, it nonetheless created immoral results, (from a certain position). So I understand the fact that things don't have to be inherently immoral to cause immoral affects, however when it comes to xtian doctrine and the other concept is I am studying this can be said to be true. I'm just demonstrating I appreciate what you are saying, and in certain circumstances you could be right, but not I think in this one. Your arguments are reasonable in general, but badly applied in this instance.

 

I don't think anyone claims Christians are innocent of crimes commit in God's name.

 

So? Those responsible would, both before and after their deeds. The very belief in God is what made these atrocities possible, therefore there is an inherent threat even in monotheism itself. God is nothing more than a "get out of guilt free" card. What other people may say about these immoral xtian's is irrelevant, we are dealing with the threat they represent, and the cause of that threat, blind belief in absolutist authoritarianism. Fixing the problem is more important than fixing the blame.

 

And I think there are a lot of people that are trying to get beyond that and ensure that doesn't happen again.

 

Name one xtian institution with such a goal. I know of plenty freethinking and secular ones, who fight against your faith precisely for that reason, we do not wish to see history repeat. There are xtians like you who constantly try to get your God and religion off the hook, their are liberal xtians who think that the crimes of their faith's past are nothing but glitches or aberrations, and there are fundies who agree with these past crimes, and would repeat them given half the chance. I don't see the situation improved, "ensuring it doesn't happen again"? You xtian's are the reason is going to happen again! Nothing represents a return to the worst of the past like your religion. Or have you failed to notice that you guys tend to hark back to past eras as if it was Utopia?

 

From the Fifties to ancient Israel, it's all about "returning" to past values, nowhere in their rants have they any warning not to repeat the terrible things of past, you don't even acknowledge they happened, they are never mentioned, just swept under the rug while you guys prattle all about how great it was in your grandparents day, or in biblical times, and how everything would be perfectly, if you could just set the clock back. This amounts to ancestral worship and deification of the past, which is precisely what always precedes the fall of any civilisation.

 

Seriously what do most sermons consist of? Quotes from an old book about old things, examples and events long gone, if they ever happened. All written condemnation of the present, with yearnings for the past. Never have I heard any warning about past atrocities, never have I heard any concern that xtianity might cause another dark age, or destroy more civilisations, it's always the past over the future, always. Many xtian's won't even acknowledge we have a future, that it's all about to end, how irresponsible can you get? It is us freethinkers that always bring up the past, never you xtians, if we weren't around you would never acknowledge 99% of your history at all.

 

It is precisely because no xtians really accept responsibility for anything let alone their own faith's atrocities that I am pointing these things out, what happens every time any one of us freethinkers are in a debate with an xtian and we bring up your faiths past crimes? They instantly resort to "oh well, Communism killed more people" or "the Salem witch trials only killed a few people" there is nothing being done to prevent the repeat of history, you Americans have no comprehension of history at all, you think it is "bunk" and ignore the little you have, let alone the vast amounts of the rest of the world can offer. Maybe this is the Englishman in me talking, but I find your lack of interest in history to be very worrying. Our UK style fixation with it ensures that certain warnings from the past are well acknowledged. This has helped us recognise the danger of both political and religious movements, even our literature (George Orwell) is designed for this purpose, whereas certain xtians completely miss-understand or remain ignorant of this important social process, and even accuse Hillary Clinton of being a potential Antichrist because she considered 1984 to be her favourite book. If that isn't missing the point what is?

 

You xtians are the most irresponsible and history repeating idiots I have ever encountered, most of the atrocities I study are repeats of early at ones, century after century, the sheer scale and length of the repetition of your crimes boggles even my mind, and I've been studying it for 15 years! What you "think" other people are doing is irrelevant, church state separation and freedom of worship organisations never receive help from xtian ones, (unless there is and interdenominational war going on). If such movements ever appeared when we needed them, I would support them, they don't. Nobody tries to wriggle out of the past like xtians, that is something everyone here acknowledges except you, and of course other xtians. We freethinkers are on our own in this, you may think you are agreeing with me regarding your faith's past but the arguments you are using are still not helping us. You cannot prevent history repeating if you refuse to acknowledge what the problem is.

 

And there are churches within the various denominations that are trying individually to break away from their denomination's "dogma first and foremost" reputations.

 

Too little too late, they are still churches, they are still xtians, they just have slightly different way of dodging responsibility, show me the kind of arguments they use are, and I'll demonstrates why they are just as bad as those who try to ignore the past altogether. If you will not acknowledge what keeps repeatedly causing all these bloody "incidents" then nothing you can do can possibly help. You blame humanity, you blame society, you blame leaders, you never blame the source of such misery. Acknowledging there is a problem is only the first stage, focusing on what actually causes it is even more important. All these "enlightened" churches will do is flounder about trying to be a little less immoral, but there is no way they can truly escape so long as they remain xtian in anyway. They still agree with Jesus's teachings, they still agree with many of the doctrines, even if it is less than most denominations, anybody who agrees with any aspect of Christianity at all is still destined to repeat history. The corruption is absolute.

 

You have to have a consistent set of objective moral principles, which cause you to acknowledge any immoralities no matter how small, and no matter what context, even if it's in a religion you approve of. You have an elastic ethical system prepared to bend and shift when ideology comes into it. By the moral standards I believe in, xtianity is utterly beyond hope, it is not based on rational appraisals of the human condition, and therefore cannot be truely ethical, and it is not grounded in reality, but in a blind idealism, and sentimental views of Jesus or the past. There is not one element that could serve as a decent solid foundation for morality, it is not empirical, it is not rational and it is not reality based. So a bunch of psudo-ethical idiots who can't see the wood for the trees will in all probability make the situation worse by confusing the issue. They only acknowledge parts of the problem, but they still fail to realise that they are the problem as well, just a different parts of it.

 

You forget I'm not just criticising the moral status of xtianity based on its history, but by a series of stark and purer moral values that you do not have, therefore I would see problems in even liberal denominations that you cannot, your ethical system is a based on a guy in a book, rather than what constitutes ethics to a rational person. Even if I were to acknowledge your more "dogma-less" churches were further away from the immoral end of the spectrum than other denominations, they are still very far away from what I would consider even rudimentary morality, and they have no chance of ever getting better while they remain a religion.

 

Discrediting the whole is being dishonest.

 

No it is being thorough. You have no problem with me going after other denominations, you just don't want me going after yours.

 

How is it dishonest to base a moral appraisal of institutions by standards that they will always fail to reach so long as they remain an irrational ideology? I am being true and consistent to my position, honesty to an objectivist is the highest ideal. You don't get it, my moral values are being used here, not yours, I do not have room in my ethical system for sentiment or belief, I'm not prepared to turn a blind eye or allow room for softer versions of your ideology out of a misguided approval of your demagogue. It all goes, and we start again, we use reason, we use the empirical truth, and we get it right. Your favourite denominations may be a product of a slightly better architect, but they are all still built on sand. Every house in the city you call xtianity, all doomed to sink and take its inhabitants with them. I can see this because I am not blinded by belief, there is no cognitive dissonance to warp my appraisal of the facts, I take everything into account, and I judge by no other standard than by reason and objective morality, it all goes, there can be no exceptions, or the virus will spread again. Can garantee your liberal denomination won't spawn a fundie version one day? No, so they all go, that's how antibiotics work, you kill it all, or the survivors will become a greater threat. Evolution applies to religion as well.

 

Are you simply refering to early Christians or Jews as well?

 

And here it comes, the anti-Semitism, you xtian's are so far gone you don't even know when you're being racist. What the hell has Judaism gotta do with your early cult? I know that the new Testament writers spent most of their time spewing anti-Semitic propaganda at one of the religious groups they had a problem with, but by this enlightened day and age you should be able see through this bigoted scam. I have no argument with the Jews, they are not responsible for the monstrosity that is xtianity, they would not have had any part in its creation, and they certainly have not benefited from it.

 

Whatever flaws they may have they didn't deserve to be on the receiving end of such hatred within the N.T. and they certainly did not deserve the treatment they have received at the hands of your spiritual forebears. The very idea that Jews could have had any hand in the work that pours more scorn upon them than any other series of works of the classical world is ridiculous. Use some commonsense, these were not Jews slagging off other Jews, these were Gentiles, using them for a scapegoat, inspiring the Nazis to do so centuries later. There is nothing in the new Testament writings that betray any Jewish writer, just a crude understanding of Jewish theology mixed in with pagan motifs. Yes they used various Jewish writings, (such as revelations) and corrupted it to their purposes, but only by twisting is beyond all recognition, and their mutilation and misrepresentation of the old Testament is the main reason why Jews make such bad converts to your religion. Hence the bad treatement. The more you fight convertion, the worse they treat you as you have to be "saved despite yourself" doctrine over-riding humane ethics.

 

Because many of those tied into a legalistic doctrine were "rebuked" by Jesus.

 

Those allegedly "rebuked" by your figurehead were Pharisees who were reacting against the Hellenism of their religion, they saw the kind of problems it would cause, and were right to do so as one of those problems turned into a Christianity. Your religion is a form of Hellenism spliced with Jewish doctrine, the reason Pharisees in particular were targeted for anti-Semitic abuse was because they were the group responsible for stifling the kind of amalgamated bastardisation that spawned your cult. These people were not the "bad guys" any more than your Jesus was the "good guy" this was just the xtian side of a rivalry. The early xtian scribes and leaders were using Jesus to score points for their side. Later all Jews would be targeted as xtianity became not just a hellenistic "jewish" cult but began demanding it's interpretation of the O.T. (warped to fit jesus's "life") was more legitimate, and that the old (eternal) covenant was revoked, and that they where the only way to god now. Therefore the Jews were "obsolete", try to tell me that wasn't a recipe for disaster.

 

They were opposing ideologies, and although I as a rationalist side with neither, I nonetheless understand the pharisaic perspective. You are siding with the other, and assume the Pharisees are simply guilty as charged, (Jesus said it, that settles it right?) without looking into their posiiton or seeing if Jesus was even remotely accurate. You throw words like "legalistic" around even though that is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes the Pharisees focused all their efforts into executing the 613 Torah Commandments, but at least they had a ethical standards, whereas Jesus replaced it with a vague notion of his example and the contradictory xtian doctrines that the denominations and history of your cult prove are inconsistent and the poorest guide for moral values. Pharisaic Judaism may be crude and archaic, but at least it has a moral foundation to work from, and isn't completely nebulous and open to every conceivable interpretation, no matter how extreme. Jews today show you can be ethical and religious, without their example I wouldn't have believed it was possible, not from you guys anyway.

 

I recently had reason to rebuke another xtian for saying something like this, a view of Jews based on a credulous belief in the spun and reworked accounts of Jesus's "death", but also on understanding of Judaism that is purely derived from the new Testament, the least reliable source concerning them. It was written by a rival cult, who had every interesting is destroying Judaism as it contained proof that they interpretation of Jewish doctrine was fraudulent.

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

 

And yet this is your basis for your understanding of Jews, it's no wonder you xtians committed so many atrocities against them. It is no more balanced, it is no more accurate and it is no more a fair depiction of Jewish people than Mein Kampf or Luther's "On the Jews and There Lies". They were all the writings of an ideology out to do build a legacy of hatred and destruction on the backs of dead Israelites, (and anybody else would didn't conform, like me!) it is obvious to anyone without any unbelievable amount of bias that the new Testament was written by anti-Semitics, whose only grounds for all their insults was their particular religious beliefs, (beliefs you share) the quotes to that affect are insurmountable.

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/anti.html

 

http://www.richardwebster.net/antisemitism...gesthatred.html

 

Evening if you have nothing against Jews, you nonetheless believe the accounts of them, and un-justifiable rebukes of Jesus.

 

That is why many times today you have liberal Christians referring to the more rabid fundamentalists as Pharisees.

 

The irony wasn't lost on me I can assure you. Trust an xtian to act the opposite of Jesus, for better or worse.

 

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.

 

If you meant Rome then you could be correct, if there is any truth to the crucifixion and then that's why he was killed, for being another potential Messiah out to start a rebellion, that is the only credible possibility. We have many historically proven examples to that effect, none to support the idea that the Jews would have done it, that was just the spin put on the story in order to tap the more lucrative conversion fodder of Rome when the Jews failed to satisfy the weekly new-sheep quota, bribing the more promising customer, and stabbing the least promising in the back. The idea that Jews could have bullied Pilot into crucifying anyone, the idea that the Sanhedrin would treat Jesus the way they are depicted as doing, the idea that they would sentence someone to death for no reason (let alone at all, as they were Just for their time and hated capital punishment), the idea that Jews would welcome Jesus with open palms one day and call for his "blood to be on them" the next, is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

If you can read these accounts and not see a problem with them, then you are stupid, even when I was a choirboy I knew something was wrong! The whole story as written does not ring true. My innate reason knew that long before I studied the actual context and realised that these accounts have more historical errors in them than a Mel Gibson movie.

 

And naturally you would believe that as someone with as militant views against religion as you do.

 

I only believe what the evidence compels me to, my bias is due to my research., my opinions are based on facts, and the personality and doomsday elements and the cultic giveaways are all there if you look. What you seem to think is that my bias affect my writings, but although this is true it is purely down to the research, you fail to appreciate that I have done any, clearly because you have not thought to do any yourself. I guarantee you that a objective study of the facts will lead you to be just as "militant" (I prefure reasonable) as I am. I don't just have this opinion, I have this opinion for a reason. We objectivists argue with certainty because we know that despite the toing and froing of views and opinions we nonetheless have the facts are side, and if our opponents would only get off their fat arses and do some research they would no longer be our opponents. It is largely due to misconception and ignorance that people disagree with us. We speak for the facts, because apparently they cannot speak for themselves.

 

And I think there are groups now that do just that and live in their little bubbles.

 

That just pisses me off. What part of objective do you not understand? It is Theists that live in their little Jesus-verse completely cut off from reality, not us. You lot are fighting science, you lot are fighting logic, you lot are trying to blot out history, you are in the reality hating bubble, you spread lies and cover up facts, and even if you conceded that this only applies to other denominations, it is nonetheless a well-recognised trait of Christianity. How many times have you seen Theists come on these forums and have all their falsehoods corrected by people who have done proper research? Why is it that the freethinkers are always better educated then you xtian's? It's because we have nothing to fear from the outside world, were as your religion demands ignorance and credulity over knowledge. ("love not the world")

 

Who is more likely to be in a bubble? Do I have proofs for my opinions? All of history and science. Do you have proof of Jesus? No. Stop projecting your flaws onto me. Who uses more facts in their arguments you or me? Your position is based on your beliefs, my position is based on reality, hence my continual encouragement of my readers to do research. I'm not just trying to browbeat people with my opinions and agenda, I am trying to encourage them to think for themselves because I know that free of bias and outside influence people will use the better methods of investigation to reach my position. This happens every time someone shows any degree of objectivity. You, a religious perosn and therefore totally subjectivistic and relativistic with no knowledge of anything, infer I'm living in a bubble I find very very ironic.

 

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.

 

That is what I have been saying, I specifically said the dogmas not the umbrella term, check my earlier posts. But the dogmas are not later editions, but the foundation, and the immoral elements were inserted from the very beginning by immoral people. You may recognise the dangers of the dogmas but you don't recognise the part they play in all this. You think it's all about Jesus, but he is the hand puppet used to distract you from the needle. Why do think Paul kept going on about Jesus even though he had none of the "historical" details from the Gospels, and no quotes? A cult of personality either surves to gratify the person projecting the personality from himself, or those projecting the personality from their own imaginations. You really need to study cults. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't know anything, it just keeps turning into a lecture rather than a debate.

 

But to me, Christianity is rooted in Christ and not Paul's writings

 

Xtianity started with Paul's writings, check your facts. His ramblings are the earliest recorded examples of your religion, in fact we have no evidence of your religion outside his writings for that period. Jesus was always the focus, but even before there was a coherent story for him, before the miracles, before the teachings, before they decided he was god, there was the saviour and resurrected figurehead.

 

The problem is you don't realise that the Gospels stories were a late addition, and the Jesus as you know was a later invention, the various oral traditions that were cobbled together into mark, that served as the template for the other Gospels, were not only based on other non-xtian sources, but were not considered important enough to be mentioned in the earlier church writings. And his teachings (rip offs of Rabbidical, Buddhist and contemporary church polemics) didn't come out till later as well, or why did Paul never mention them? You're just latching onto one element of your cult, and ignoring the others, like xtians who only base their denomination on pre-Constantine xtianity, as if that would make them more un-wordly, failing to realise that has always been wordly, and always been corrupted, and Constantine was just the most infamous example. Others emphasise the Epistles, or Petrine examples. It's all the same shite, there was no idyllic era of tongue-speaking miracle-casting apostles and miraculous and heroic escapes from evil Jews. However it developed it wasn't that way, they just kicked over the traces and invented a new past as they went. That's why there's no corroboration before any of it, we don't know what really happened so we don't know what to look for.

 

Picking and choosing your own definition of Christianity, one that does not reflect the majority, or the doctrines I'm analysing, may get your understanding of xtianity off the hook, but not what it really amounts to. You want to focus on Jesus of the Gospels as if that was a whole point? Fine, but in the meantime there are many other elements to your religion which are a terrible threat and I need to deal with, do not stand in the way of my demolishing elements you don't believe in.

 

Ultimately I disagree with this sentence because "Christ" as you understanding him was not the origin or source of your religion. If that were the case then we wouldm't have the New Testament books arriving in the order they did, or the early church fathers quoting the old Testament as if they hadn't any of Jesus's words. If he was a simple personality, with no historical reality, example or teachings, then we should expect precisely the doctrinal development that occurred. You worship a finished product, fashioned by many minds and hands, he was not borne whole, a complete person or character, he did not spawn this religion, it spawned him. If not, then where is the evidence for his historical existence? Why did church fathers feel the need to fake so many accounts from Josepheus to Pliny? Why is it that his name accompanies the words of others prior to the gospels, as a seal of authority. Or that the motifs of crucifixion, death and resurrection are the only mention of any possible earthly life, and are the only elements the Gospels writers all made sure they had? Are these motifs not the framework from which later embellishments were built? What kind of founder would leave such a scant legacy? And why would the gospel writers be compelled to plunder the works of other faiths and philosophies, in order to give Jesus things to say and do? And why would his teachings in earlier Gospels reflected the problems, issues and opinions of early churches, and a later Gospels reflected later issues and agendas? Research theist.

 

(I do agree some people need a shining example, but if there isnt one, you invariable create one to serve that purpose, the insistance on historicity is to make it seemingly possible to emulate, "Jesus could do it, so could you!" you wouldn't think is was possible if you didn't think it had already been done).

 

I know there are many Christians that disagree and put a lot more stock in what Paul had to say than what Jesus did.

 

Jesus didn't say anything, but anyway. People read what ever confirms their positions, for the sexist bigot there is Paul, for the Lenin wanabe there is Jesus.

 

I will confess to you that I considered Jesus historical for a long time. The problem was I was only studying the Gospels, thinking they were the closest source to anything historical. If you read only them, as a rationalist, you conclude that there was a historical Jesus, that in all probability he was one of the zealots who tried to fulfil the old Testament prophesies concerning the Messiah and failed. There were a great many failed Messiahs in first century Judea, he would have faded into obscurity very quickly, (hence the lack of historical proof) but for his followers who after his unexpected death snapped. Like with Apollonius of Tian, they began claiming he had returned, and would either fulfil the prophesies he had yet to do to become the Messiah, or was already so in light of his resurrection.

But as this contradicted the Messianic criteria in the old Testament they invented a new one, but this set them at odds with the Jews who would have objected to them re-writing Old Testament prophesies, (see Gos-Mat), hence the New Testament's anti-Semitic slant.

 

This seemed a reasonable conclusion, it would explain where xtianity came from, and was a probable beginning given this occurred with other cults, Christianity merely being the most successful of these posthumous personality worshippers. You watch what happens when a charismatic leader dies, remember all those rumours of Elvis still being alive? And look what they did to Lenin's body. People can't cope with death, especially when it happens to those they love, hence Heaven and hence the resurrection. The product of a whole group of desperate religious nutters in denial.

 

The problem with this explanation is it that it takes too much for granted. If I in 2000 years time found a copy of Harry Potter, and concluded that there really had been a boy of that name and the magical elements were just imaginative elaborations, and that in all probability he had been an ordinary boy at an ordinary School, with even more ordinary friends, then I'd be a gibbering idiot. It is much more rational to conclude that it's simply a work of fiction, instead of picking the less impossible bits and declaring them to be the basis for the story. JK's books may have been loosely based on real people, (as authors do, I find it helps with my fiction) but that does not mean Harry Potter himself was a historical character. Just because there are a few credulous idiots who believe it's all true doesn't mean you should be influenced by them into being almost as stupid.

 

What you have to do is not only look at the entire New Testament, but also the works of contemporary Christians. Since none of these secular sources can be trusted, (given the xtian hobby of pious fraud which continues to this day,) Justin martyr and his pals are all the extra N.T. sources we have. With this method, peeling away the layers of development, we are left with a very little. No background details, no setting, or words, just a name and a spiritual nature, such a limited construct hardly demands an historical figure for an origin. Paul's "voice from above" Jesus, then Mark's "of Nazareth", then the later embellishments of this, which are even easier to account for, intertwined with the Epistles and fake Pauline material, it all boils down to a name, hardly a reliable basis for a lifestyle. If you wish to follow the character of Jesus, that it then that is no difference from identifying with Superman, but don't insist he is historical, the fictional adventures of a cult figurehead may serve as an example, but not as any reality. That is when you start taking its too seriously, and the problems begin. I have no major objection to you basing your life on a work of fiction, as long as you acknowledge it is fiction. A poor source of ethics is bad enough, but a complete dettachment from reality is unforgivable.

 

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.

 

I disagree, the different interpretations and bible quotes may create different denominations, but as with the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism the doctrines remain largely untouched. These are fundamental elements we are talking about, not just whether or not the Trinity exists, but concepts like sin, God, after-lives, salvation, belief, even when boiled down to these very essential elements they still have terrible potential, due to their irrationality, due to their idealism and fantasy, and due to their capability to negate ethics and the value of human life. So long as they are adhered to, the danger will always remain, I just don't think it's worth the risk.

 

So long as we have belief in prayer, children will be neglected to death by their parents, so long as we have after-lives people will sacrifice their own lives or that of others, so long as we have salvation doctrines and an emphasis on the avoidance of hell, we will have potential inquisitions, so long as we have guilt and sin, we will have dependency building cult's, so long as we have the concept of "End Times" will have doomsday and suicide cults. These concepts are inherently dangerous, I use the term immoral because of my strict ethical discipline, but what ever term you wish to use they are a threat. Nothing can make them benign except their destruction. You may be willing to take the chance that they won't repeat history, I am not so foolhardy or irresponsible. I am not risking future generations due to a sentimental attachment to some fictional role model.

 

Because I do not adhere to a doctrine doesn't mean I cannot disagree with your dissection of it.

 

Jolly good.

 

And I am certainly by no means trying to claim that the wrongs of Christians past and present have been indemnified.

 

You'd be in trouble if you did.

 

There are many that simply cannot be paid back.

 

All.

 

(I, personally have nothing to be absolved of because I'm perfect ;-)

 

Really? Me too!

 

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

 

Yes I was, just to demonstrate why its origins are as immoral as its current state. If its status today wasn't immoral I would not object, I'd only point out its origins for the purpose of clarity and truth. However as both are immoral I feel the need to bring it up.

 

Possible? Sure, that doesn't mean I think there is anyone "perfectly" logical.

 

Maybe not but logic can be perfect in the abstract. We are talking the theory not the practice. The same as in mathematics. At least objectivists strive for that ideal, and are thusly more likely to be right due to our logical nature, perfection is not required to be right. We should just continue to strive for it indefinitely.

 

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?

 

Your use of it in the context of beings and behavioural examples points to a idealism only to be found in religion. No rationalist ever claimed there was a perfect person, or perfect deed, we simply don't use this term in such contexts. Nothing in empirical reality can be called "perfect", (remember descriptive not prescriptive) for example life on earth is not striving towards perfection as some claim, and we are not physically perfect, it is just a word used by people of a religious disposition who wish to use life as proof of their "perfect" deity. Life is striving to survive, nothing more, and in doing so it adapts and evolves and achieves greater degrees of complexity, we are the shape we needed to be in order to survive in a particular environment, to call us "perfect" is rather silly. That is just one example, but many times Theists throw the word "perfect" around, quite inappropriately, we just find it a little unsophisticated.

 

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.

 

Yes this is weird, every now again you start talking sense, but then revert to theistic idiocy, I just feel you are stuck between two worlds. Of reason and faith, and I'd like to pull you over to just one side, it's makes things much simpler.

 

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.

 

Sure, but wasn't after a dialogue, I was after a scientific style slaughter. I can't have got it all right straight away, but no one has ever been able to prove anything I write or say is wrong since I started writing freethought material, it is very frustrating, I wish to be proved wrong at least once, then I'll know what it feels like. I can't develop and grow until I get my scars. Besides you'd don't really have any ideas I haven't already heard, and dismissed. Man I am harsh.

 

Agreement isn't my mission.

 

No, but destruction is mine. I get people to agree with me by destroying their objections.

 

Just discussion and perhaps more understanding of where you are coming from.

 

Any time, such a "radical" view as mine certainly needs to be backed up by solid arguments, and I'm always willing to provide that.

 

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.

 

I will try repay the courtesy, but I am an incredibly rude bastard.

 

And apparently I am too dense to use the quote function properly.

 

Or understand the true theological and doctrinal development of your religion, but we won't go through that again.

 

Sorry about that. I've added color to the parts of your post I was responding to.

 

And very pretty it was too.

 

I hope you have the opportunity to read through all this, I will be posting it up in it's own thread so as to attract other readers, because I think it deals rather thoroughly with the issues. I may re-word it into an essay at a later date, especially if I get more material from you. As to the other readers, if you have made it this far well done, I may have been brutal at times, but my tolerance for a xianity is at a low ebb at present. I just hope I have made a convincing case. (I inclose the full RTF)

 

 

 

AUB - Signing off.

BT3_final_alt.rtf

[Guest acorn]

HAHA And now you probably realize why I don't do the whole debate thing all that often. Because other than the existence of God (which, I'm probably pretty agnostic in that too), most of what one would debate against I probably agree with them on some level. And quite frankly, I don't really care. It isn't some huge part of who I am. I'm rather secular in my beliefs. I don't go to church regularly (I see it as a waste of time and it cuts in on my sleeping late). While Easter is my fave holiday, it has nothing to do with the Christian twist on it. I like bunnies and ducks and wildflowers and painting eggs and chocolate and pastels and our family traditions and....you get the point.

 

I would say the only "tradition" we have that is "christian" on a holiday is on Christmas we sing "Happy Birthday Baby Jesus" not so much that we think it was his birthday, but because it gives us something silly to do and call a tradition. That and we get to eat birthday cake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What is the definition of Christianity?

I have been informed by many dictionaries that it is defined as "a follower of Jesus Chirst"

 

What is the defintion of a follower " one who goes by a certain way, or teachings"

Easter is the most important time of the year symbolicly for Christianity, because thats when He died and rose again. We must accept this.

 

Jesus taught in the synagues very reguarly, and His disciples also spread the gospel as well as teaching to many. As Christians today(Iknow Ive made that exact comment) that we must attend regular service to truly see what God wants for us, and for our discipline.

 

If you sing happy birthday to baby Jesus as "something silly to do" then I will pray for you.

 

I know that this is a tough site, but I have to ask this question to you.

What is your stance on the afith right now?

If you carry the title of Christianity then we must defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, of course as a follower of Christ and we cant even in the smallest forms deny what we believe, thats if you believe. Truly, dont take that the wrong way, I am concerned of your stance by your last comment. PM me, well talk.

[Asimov]

What is the definition of Christianity?

I have been informed by many dictionaries that it is defined as "a follower of Jesus Chirst"

 

What is the defintion of a follower " one who goes by a certain way, or teachings"

Easter is the most important time of the year symbolicly for Christianity, because thats when He died and rose again. We must accept this.

 

Jesus taught in the synagues very reguarly, and His disciples also spread the gospel as well as teaching to many. As Christians today(Iknow Ive made that exact comment) that we must attend regular service to truly see what God wants for us, and for our discipline.

 

If you sing happy birthday to baby Jesus as "something silly to do" then I will pray for you.

 

I know that this is a tough site, but I have to ask this question to you.

What is your stance on the afith right now?

If you carry the title of Christianity then we must defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, of course as a follower of Christ and we cant even in the smallest forms deny what we believe, thats if you believe. Truly, dont take that the wrong way, I am concerned of your stance by your last comment. PM me, well talk.

 

Nobody has any problem with BigToe, acorn. So this site isn't as "difficult" for her as it is for you.

 

If you'd like to debate something, then feel free to bring up a topic.

[Guest acorn]

Nobody has any problem with BigToe, acorn.  So this site isn't as "difficult" for her as it is for you. 

 

If you'd like to debate something, then feel free to bring up a topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Apologies, I should have PM big toe rather than add to the thread. I do believe that alot of Christians take Christianity very lightly. This bothers me more than people that dont want no part of it and claim not to. Again, I should have PM this was more of a personnal note, Christian to Christian. Big toe I apologize for this if you see it.

[Asimov]

Apologies, I should have PM big toe rather than add to the thread. I do believe that alot of Christians take Christianity very lightly. This bothers me more than people that dont want no part of it and claim not to. Again, I should have PM this was more of a personnal note, Christian to Christian. Big toe I apologize for this if you see it.

 

Why shouldn't they take it lightly? Should all Christians be somber, fun-haters who only preach? That doesn't sound like living, sounds like being a moron.

[Cerise]

Remmeber Asimov, if BigToe doesn't do exactly what Acorn does, then she is definitely not TrueChristian.

 

And that's not good.

 

[- AUB -]

I'd debate you anytime acorn, please don't de-rail.

[BigToe]

AUB, quite the long responses there so I have read them. It will just take a little longer to respond. But I do think we agree on a lot more than disagree. It just seems that I place more responsibility on the individual than you do, at least in this circumstance.

 

Acorn- it isn't that I take it lightly. And I will respond to your post as soon as I finish responding to AUB's. But unless you are closeminded, you really have no reason to take up issue with me.

[BigToe]

Ok, your responses are far too long for me to limit it to three responses. I am going to try and condense my responses because when I copied and pasted your first post of the three in word- it was 27 pages long. Please tell me your fingers are calloused over Anyway, I am generally responding to the entire paragraph but for purposes of shortening the response I've generally snipped your quotes. I promise it isn't an attempt to mangle your words or misquote you.

 

My general position is not that xtian's cannot be nice, but their religion is inherently wrong… These people are a clue as the true nature of Christianity or Islam, not aberrations or fringe lunatics, they invariably know the Bible and their religious doctrine better than most xtian's such as yourself.

 

Naturally I am going to take up some issue with this paragraph. It isn’t that I don’t know the bible or doctrine less- I just choose not to take it literally. I would say that those who don’t follow the bible literally generally have a better knowledge of the whole book than those who do not. Anyway, I know that isn’t the point you’re here to discuss. I will go on to say I didn’t mean to imply I felt the rabid fundamentalists are lunatics. All I was suggesting is that there is something more than one’s beliefs at stake in how they use it and manifest it in their behavior. I know several of the literal interpretation, legalistic Christians that would fit your definitions. Sure, some I would say are dangerous—but not all. I don’t think that their belief in turn makes them evil. It is their actions with that belief.

 

"live and let live" attitude, who wondered whether certain religions could be just "right" for different people. … Maybe these people are encouraged to behave that way because of their particular xtian community, or maybe they are doing it is due to the kind of selfish drives that xtianity installs in people, or maybe they were just decent people anyway. Either way their behaviour was not representative of the religion as a whole, or its central doctrines, or the behaviour of believers and their God in the Bible. Especially as we cannot, as she put it "know the state of their hearts". A rather theistic way of putting it, but I never credit a person's actions to a single cause or belief until I have traced to their motives to a specific source or state of mind.

 

I don’t think the behavior of any believers can be representative of a religion as a whole. That is the issue I am taking up with your claims that Christianity is immoral. I don’t disagree that what many have done in “the name of God” is beyond being immoral. I don’t disagree that there are groups out there that encourage and demand their members commit such atrocious acts. So I certainly do not disagree that there are congregations out there that fit your definition of Christian that are dangerous to others and cause more harm than good. But I do not think that is representative of the whole anymore than the good folks are. I think that both ends of that spectrum are simply what people choose to do with their theological beliefs for various reasons. I do not think the good or the bad people out there are representative of the whole. They are individuals and representative of their own selves.

 

As for a religion either being right or wrong—I suppose that depends on what you feel that religion claims. And for someone who is Christian (I will use your definition and not my own unless I otherwise state so) they certainly feel their religion claims to be the ONE TRUE religion and therefore all others are false. However, for someone of the Baha’I Faith will disagree as that faith defines things differently as well. But yes, I know that is beside the point and we’re discussing Christianity. I think most probably agree that a religion is either right or wrong, that or they don’t care. My reasoning for not thinking any religion is right or wrong is for entirely different reasons and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

The point is, every religion has good people in it, even Nazism had Oscar Schindler.

 

Nazism wasn’t a religion and I doubt Schindler was in on that. But I get your point. I certainly don’t mean that because there are some good folks in a group means the thought behind it is good. But I also feel the same towards bad people in a group.

 

Their behaviour can still be judged… within the confines of objective morality can be understood and judged.

 

Sure, anyone’s behavior can be judged. I wasn’t disagreeing with that. But again we judge them as individuals finding their own motives and sources for behavior. When we can find two individuals with vastly differing behavior—as we judge it—that are traced back to the same source, Christianity in this case, then I assert that the source itself cannot be what is dangerous.

 

Like we hear of therapists that through the power of suggestion make their clients “realize” they suffered great trauma. I think we’d both agree this form of therapy is quite harmful and cruel. But we also have therapists that do a great deal to help people come to terms with actual traumas they endured. Both are therapists, one good and one evil. I doubt we can say that because the bad one did bad and caused more harm than good that therapy in and of itself is inherently evil.

 

I also don’t think the bible is deliberately inconsistent. With many people writing various things over the course of such a long time, it is pretty much a given there will be inconsistencies. They were only men after all. Now if women had written it…. ☺ But yes, Christians don’t see it that way and it is God writing it, blah blah blah. God being inconsistent with himself is a problem. I agree. That is why I am not that type of Christian

 

Regardless of this, there is still much that can be said concerning xtianity's impact on humanity… there is one unifying factor in all this, xtianity sucks.

 

I would say it that Christians suck, not Christianity. But again this is because I see a difference in the individuals and the whole. Not because of my own claim of being Christian, but because I believe responsibility lays on the individual and there is no going around that. At least as far as I see it.

 

Try and find one that has not got moral controversies surrounding it.... In other words their inherent similarities cause of their division.

 

I don’t think the suffering is limited to exchristians alone, or even nonchristians. And I completely disagree with the methods you’re criticizing. But I think it isn’t religion so much as what individuals do with religion that is at fault. But again, that stems from my definitions and not yours.

 

But let’s run with your definition of a Christian and see what is going on. Homosexuality seems to be a huge issue in the American church right now. There are obviously those groups that don’t care what someone’s sexuality is, but then we have the churches that do care. The way many treat non heterosexuals is easily seen as negative by both of us. We see the harm they are causing others. So why do they do it? Because there are leaders that say that they cannot be friends with gay people, that for some reason a bisexual is inferior, that a transgendered person is to be avoided. Most of how they treat these people isn’t backed up in the Bible as “The Way To Treat Anyone Who Isn’t Heterosexual.” So they see it as sin (and we both probably scoff at that and roll our eyes) and think that by transforming those people to fit their view of what God wants they are somehow ensuring that other person’s salvation. And I would agree that is evil. But there is something other than the Bible and the central tenants of Christianity at play here. I mean we are told to stone disobedient children to death. So they are guilty of picking which little details to be taken literally and which ones not to. But why? It certainly isn’t a result of the basics you laid out- if a homosexual is sinful, they are no more sinful than anyone else in that church. So what is it that causes them to be so much more harmful to one group over others? Something else is at play. That treatment isn’t found only in Christian groups, or even only in religious groups. So if the behavior isn’t exclusive to Christianity or religious people, why do we blame Christianity or another religion for it alone?

 

You'll find that the removal of all the doctrines I listed, would result in a worldview that does not resemble any xtian denomination, but rather a view of Jesus an agnostic would have.

 

And I don’t disagree with that. I call myself agnostic as well. So go me for being all over the place right? ☺

 

There are many different ways to be immoral… Besides none of this changes the fact that the existence of a God puts morality in a awkward position in itself, (Eurythro dilemma) let alone all the other implications.

 

I suppose if one feels that God plays a very active roll and controls everything yeah, there really can’t be any genuine morality for those people. Because then they do not truly choose if they do right or wrong or anything else for that matter. But I don’t think that is a claim that Christianity makes- that God does everything. There are certainly different schools of thought as to how active a roll he plays, but I don’t think that there are many Christians out there that feel they are just God’s pawn. If they do feel that way, there are several things they would believe that I would question- what purpose would the devil have in their world? Anyway, that is beside the point as well. Point being that I don’t think the mere existence of a god would necessarily put morality in an awkward position.

 

And as I have previously stated, xtian's cannot be moral without defying their central precepts, which you appear to do, therefore regardless of the fact that my condemnation fails to apply to you, you still fit within the theory I have outlined.

 

But that doesn’t work either. Unless in the same breath you are going to call me an immoral Muslim, Jew, or any other religion that I don’t subscribe to. If I claimed to be a Christian the way you define one and remain the way I am- then I would agree. But I fail to see how being a Christian that doesn’t fit your definition or not going along with the precepts as you see them makes them immoral?

 

Xtianity more than any other faith either cancels out any moral contents with its "faith over all else" ideology or defines morality in either vague or arbitrary ways. Quite how it gained its reputation as a moral authority is beyond me… equates a "Christian act" with a "moral act" for example, that they never actually get round to defining any ethical values at all.

 

Oh I certainly understand not getting how Christians self appointed themselves to be authorities on morality. I don’t get it either, and I think they miss the mark by a long shot. I too take issue with faith above all else. But again, I’m not orthodox in my beliefs in the slightest.

 

To me morality is a philosophical exercise, not a religious one, … Although a deity or mystical force may serve as a explanation or origin for morality ... If Christians want to claim they have a explanation for the origin of morals, fine, but they have no right to tell us what moral values to follow. Neither their track record nor their deity's behaviour justifies that attitude.

 

And I agree with that.

[BigToe]

Again you misunderstand, I am not defining Christianity at all, I am detailing its principal doctrines and explaining why they are inherently immoral.

 

Yes, but in stating what you feel are the principle doctrines you are defining what Christianity is. Even if it is in agreement with most people in the world.

 

But that is the problem, sin itself is an inherently immoral concept. There may be disagreement on the details, but they all believe in a God, and most of the elements and concepts described in the Bible, all of which I have a problem with. There is not one saving virtue in the whole scheme.

 

And I agree with that. But again, that is why my beliefs aren’t those of orthodox Christianity.

 

I agree, hence my stance with objective morality, it is a complex standard dealing with all of humanities interactions and attitudes.

 

Oh no, what happens if I say I agree with you on something three times?

 

The moral fundamentals of Western civilisation are derived from the secular values of either the Renaissance, enlightenment, or Saxon and Roman law...controversies are based on ancient cultural taboos and conventions… not moral standards, but their absolutist stance means they constantly confuse the relative for the objective. This is precisely what people like me fight against.

 

Third time. I disagree with the absolutist stance as well.

 

I have already explained, that the term "absolute" is used inappropriately by religions to silence all debate, difference of opinion or dissent.

 

And I am not disagreeing with you here either. I agree that the absolutist attitude is harmful, but I don’t think it is necessarily Christianity. But I suppose as you view Christianity it is? Is that where I am getting confused?

 

Oh, as for forgetting objectivism- I wasn’t intentionally doing so. But I suppose I felt you were looking at Christians with their absolutist attitude that perhaps you felt they left no room open for moral objectivism. And considering we see the inconsistencies in behavior allowed in churches among chrisitans or nonchristians, I think they aren’t taking stances on morality from an objective standpoint. Some certainly are, but I don’t think that most, at least in that worldview, are. I think that’s a mistake. But again, I was simply attempting to agree that the way many use the terms dealing with morality are incorrect.

 

I tend to think that morality is mutually incompatible with religion, regardless of their claims.

 

You know, I’ve picked up on that.

 

Bingo, honestly you sound just like me sometimes

 

Should I be worried?

 

The idea that your moral actions don't count unless you've been saved is quite appalling.

 

I certainly agree with that.

 

That is the question that needs to be asked, why would a church be willing to let people off with this one belief? … It's a sales tactic, nothing more. I fell to see what's so important about it personally.

 

And to me it isn’t. But Christians see it as a sacrifice for them to kinda show them how much God loves them. They think that is the only way they can be reconciled with God. It kinda goes with the whole “without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin” thing. But also lets them not have to shed any more blood, supposedly anyway.

 

All you have done is fallen for one of its many tactics, the idea that it supposedly just rests on one principal, that of faith in Jesus and the resurrection.

 

Oh, but I haven’t. I am talking about what Christians believe, not what I believe.

 

Why is the Bible so damn long?

 

You got me on that one. No clue.

 

The problem is you fail to see the full implications of even this one verse. Faith itself is the problem. This one line alone is responsible for numerous atrocities, let alone all the others. There is barely a Bible quote you could give me that I could not directly attributed to specific crimes against humanity…

 

Directly attributed? I doubt that. Heavily indirectly attributed perhaps. Unless someone else has something in mind or an agenda to bring on their own “Jesus wept” cannot be directly responsible for something. An individual or group of individuals can instead decide something and use “Jesus wept” to perhaps justify their making every person cry so they may be more like Christ. But we both know that is not what that verse says nor its intention.

 

But faith itself isn’t a problem. Do you mean faith in general, faith in god, faith in what? I have faith in many things, theological in nature and not. Arguably, the worst thing I have ever done was put dog poop in my sister’s bed when I was 12. That had absolutely NOTHING to do with my faith in anything.

 

How does believing in the basics of this story in itself make you a better person? Or the world a better place? It didn't.

 

I certainly didn’t claim that it did. And if you gathered that, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Even if I were to accept Romans 10:9 as the definition of Christianity, hasn't your curiosity ever prompted you to ask why the most important thing a human being can do is believe this part of the Gospels story? Isn't that rather odd? Seriously give it some thought.

 

I have thought about it and I agree that it is weird and makes no sense. Romans 10:9 is not what I base my beliefs on, I simply brought it up because many that you would call Christian do boil it down to that verse, at least when you get them to summarize it with one verse. But again, my taking up issue with that idea doesn’t really do much for this discussion because we both already know my beliefs aren’t orthodox.

 

What do you mean people? … Even if you only look at Jesus's words alone as a source of a religion, there's enough there for a hundred Holocausts.

 

Perhaps if INDIVIDUALS decide to act on whatever subtext you believe is there. But I fail to see how Jesus’s words alone will fuel a hundred Holocausts. Can you support that a little more just to help me understand this point?

 

No twisting is required. Jesus was a miserable little arsehole that probably would have approved of most of Christianity's atrocities done in his name. Luke 10:15 … compared to Buddha or Ghandi this guy was a raving psycho. Luke 16:19-31 … this is a ridiculous position and yet essential to Jesus's teachings.

 

Well my views on this are far from what you consider to be Christian views. Hades was understood as a place where the dead went, ALL the dead. I don’t believe there was/is a literal hades with a literal chasm separating from heaven and earth. As far as the whole rich person in flames- I think that isn’t the point and that wealth isn’t the issue. But again, that’s a discussion about my beliefs and not those of Christianity as you see it. Anyway, I don’t think those words can really be attributed to Jesus as there aren’t other sources for the story- not mentioned in any of the other gospels and I feel it is in conflict with other things Jesus said. I think the thoughts as to hell now were not common in his time and as such can be attributed to a post-resurrection later Christian school of though.

 

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" again maybe he was being metaphorical, maybe not, but you can see where the church got it's inquisition and witch hunt's from.

 

I am not really sure how a parable about being responsible with what God has given you is responsible for a witch hunt? But it was a parable, it wasn’t literal. And that wasn’t even one critiquing the social order- there are other ones for that. I think it is a big mistake to try to literally apply each aspect of every parable, it’s the big picture of them that is supposed to be taken- not a literal analysis. But yeah, it is a metaphor, like his other parables. It isn’t meant to be applied literally- any class on literary devices can tell you that much about a metaphor. Metaphors break down if you push them too far and that is precisely why you focus on the message and not the literal application. That is when grave mistakes are made in the name of Christianity- by getting that part wrong. So the atrocities commit in the name of Christianity aren’t a sign of the inherent evilness of the religion, but a sign that the rigid application of a metaphor doesn’t really work out.

[Guest acorn]

Remmeber Asimov, if BigToe doesn't do exactly what Acorn does, then she is definitely not TrueChristian.

 

And that's not good.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Im not trying to tell anyone what they are suppose to do. I am simply pointing out my opinion about another fellow Christians comment. I am not trying to negate, or distract Big Toe from her meaning or beliefs system. I simply was just making a point that in reveiw to probualy should have PM'd her on. Also, God DOES give Christians the tools to discern from different things, this is called the fruits of the spirit. These are not meant to judge, but rather perfect the spirirt. By my beliefs He is the only judge, but by certain discernments He uses us in various ways.

[Asimov]

Im not trying to tell anyone what they are suppose to do. I am simply pointing out my opinion about another fellow Christians comment. I am not trying to negate, or distract Big Toe from her meaning or beliefs system. I simply was just making a point that in reveiw to probualy should have PM'd her on. Also, God DOES give Christians the tools to discern from different things, this is called the fruits of the spirit. These are not meant to judge, but rather perfect the spirirt. By my beliefs He is the only judge, but by certain discernments He uses us in various ways.

 

mmhmmm....

 

If you sing happy birthday to baby Jesus as "something silly to do" then I will pray for you.

 

I know that this is a tough site, but I have to ask this question to you.

What is your stance on the afith right now?

If you carry the title of Christianity then we must defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, of course as a follower of Christ and we cant even in the smallest forms deny what we believe, thats if you believe. Truly, dont take that the wrong way, I am concerned of your stance by your last comment. PM me, well talk.

 

 

That sounds a lot like telling her what to do. Interesting how the fruits of the spirit come in different forms from different people.