Any Christians Up For Some Debate?

[BigToe]

Ok, I am taking a break from responding to AUB because quite frankly I end up just repeating myself so I need a little refreshment.

 

Acorn- singing happy birthday to Jesus is a silly thing to do. Church is serious, somber, the children doing their little plays is cute and sweet. So having a birthday party is nice and silly. It isn't mean as a stab at the holiday or to make fun of Jesus. We're enjoying what the day represents.

 

Also, I don't mind if you sent this over PM or in here. I take no offense.

[- AUB -]

On the inherent immorality of Xtian doctrine part 2

 

First a reiteration as it’s been a while... (I also include the single rtf, It’s in 12 posts so I could use quotes)

 

My position is that there are certain aspects, in particular doctrines within the principle xtian paradigm that are irresponsible, harmful and therefore (as the deliberate creation of people's minds, and subject to ethical judgement) immoral. A major example is the idea of the "Soul" were the thing that really matters about someone is some invisible, intangible, unproven "egoist spirit" that will have an eternity to live in a place of either pain or bliss after death, depending on what religion you belong to. A transparent ploy, and one that has done immeasurable harm. From the materialist perspective this body and it's mind (or the mind and it's body, whatever) is us. The ultimate immoral act is to harm someone, physically or mentally, but in xtian doctrine this finite biological life is less important than the immortal afterlife, and (such as in the inquisition) the soul was used to justify atrocities.

 

It served as a goal, higher than the highest of true moral ones, and thusly fell below the expected standards for a moral being. There are many other examples, this is the most obvious, but all xtian doctrine is (in the context of rational ethics), a danger to humanity, principally because it does not recognise humanity as it truly is. We are less then it's higher intelligence, less worthy and less physically precious, the body and mental power (our reason, knowledge etc) become irrelevant, corrupt or "foolish", and that demeans all we are.

 

Now, what follows is the dissection of BT's dissection of my dissection of her dissection of my logical essay on this issue. (Liberal theists always last longer than the fundies).

 

BT

 

I tend to observe a naive view of your faith in the less fundy types, it tends to be based on limited knowledge of the bible and xtian history. When defending your faith you only look at the state of it today, as your past is without virtue, even the martyr legends have been debunked, (and weren’t very commendable examples for a rational person anyway). As such it is largely ignorance the more liberal xtians tend to rely on, (with the more biblically and historically literate fundy, its depravity as they approve of the things liberals cog-dis out). Misinformation is also common to both types, but the main point is a lesser degree of adherence in the liberal camp to doctrine, as a result you and others try to understate their importance. To you this may be accurate but the weaker strains of xtianity are largely a shadow of the faith anyway, and most problems no longer apply to it (for now). However they do to the main denominations, faith in a god, afterlives, "sin", Jesus as a moral guide and so forth, all add up to problems for humanity. And so long as these ideas remain, the danger remains, as does fundamentalism, which is a fringe element for the moment, but a constant and inevitable one.

 

"I believe religion is the root, and from the root fundamentalism grows as a poisonous stem. If we remove fundamentalism and keep religion, then one day or other fundamentalism will grow again."

-Taslima Nasrin

 

Hence my disagreement with "nice xtians" is as profound as with the nuts.

 

Anyway on with the dissection. I cover every word, so it can serve as a stand alone dialogue.

 

 

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.

 

That's fine, I'm hopefully going to do the same thing. (I tend to use voice recognition software now, for abvious reasons)

 

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.

 

But as a result you will tend not to fixate upon every paragraph, this inevitably leads to less familiarity with the content. A fundy will fight science and common-sense in order to maintain a single word of their bible, this attention to detail, and their capacity to read the bible without as much cognitive dissonance leads them to greater knowledge of it by default. You may think you know the bible well, but the chances are you are unaware of a great many passages, and even if this does not apply to you, it is certainly does to a great many xtians. I and other atheists here have had many opportunities to demonstrate a far greater knowledge of the bible, because we can read it objectively and completely, without any ideological bent to warp or filter it. There may be liberal xtian scholars who know it well, but they have to rationalise and compartmentalise a significant amount of its contents, (world flood = local flood, hell = "seperation" etc) whereas the fundy literalists know it and stand by every word, even at the cost of their morality or reason.

 

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.

 

I sincerely doubt that, most xtians don't know the bible at all and those who do tend to be the fundy types, this is my personal experience, and it defies commonsense for it to be otherwise. Do you mean a general knowledge or "understanding"? In that case it boils down to what each individual or denomination's "understanding" of the bible. You simply disagree with their overall interpretation of it. You may assume they are "wrong" and that this is due to a lack of understanding, but I would suggest that your position is largely based not just on ignorance but selective acknowledgement, for you refuse to interpret passages literally that offend your expectations, (I've even seen xtians claim the geneologies are metaphors!).

 

You have one Paradigm that compells you to see metaphors and allagories, theirs makes them literialists, neither are better than the other, but I suspect the literalists are closer to the bible writer's intentions. They were a primitive people, and these literalist retrogrades are forced to be primitive themselves, the more sophisticated theists or ones with rational pretensions are often embarrassed into glossing over the more immoral or absurd biblical contents, essentially being in denial. I don't know which view is worse, yours is inconsistent and dishonest, but theirs is barbaric, it is arrogance on the part of the Liberals to look down and then as either wrong or aberrations.

 

They simply differ, maybe they see less, maybe they see more, they would no doubt say you know less due to your understanding of it being different to theirs. (On a side-note, you still interpret literally many passages I would not, such as the Gospel events. It's all about degrees). It's amusing, you each simply interpret the bible differently, but accuse each other of being ignorance of its true meaning or contents. In this case I side with the fundies, as they accept the bible warts and all, whereas I sincerely doubt you could cope with the more disturbing aspects of it. This may seem presumptuous but it is based on experience with previous liberal xtian's.

 

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.

 

Why not? They are. True to their faith, but nuts, immoral, irrational, nuts. They represent Christianity without the civilising influence of secular enlightenment, as it has been in history and as it was in the beginning.

 

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.

 

They have a political agenda as well, but so do Liberals. +Plus of course religion is ultimately a business.

 

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.

 

Certainly actions are an integral part of judging morality, (at least in empirical ethics), and their actions are terrible, but so are their ideas, their words, their lifestyle, and their entire ideology right down to the core. Their doctrines are the ones that I am discussing. You can't just look at these people and say their actions are wrong, (though they undoubtedly are). There's a reason why they commit these actions, they are pressed into doing so by the dictates of their ideology, therefore that ideology is inherently harmful to mankind and can be regarded as immoral.

 

It is only because they are a minority that more do not commit these atrocities. You are looking at fundamentalism in isolation, and concluded that because only a minority of them are particularly immoral, then that minority are to blame. Or as the immorality is rare it is unrepresentative, but you fail to take into account other factors such as majority social pressure. Christian fundamentalism is inherently immoral, it is against humanity, it is against reason, it is against justice and the truth. It is just plain wrong in every respect, as its Paradigm is the very opposite of what we know reality to be, (from more reliable methods than emotionlistic brainwashing, i.e. empiricism etc). It is only because America is relatively more developed than this dark-age demagoguery that more of them don't commit these acts. If a person does evil actions they are evil person, by definition and act is evil due to to the intentions and beliefs of the actor. You can't detach beliefs from the acts, as it is cause and effect, and the responsibility goes right up the chain. The Christian fundamentalists commit immoralities because there is something in their make-up that is morally flawed. I say it is doctrine, what better explanation have you got?

 

 

"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.

 

Even if such behaviour is repeated century after century, and typically only found in members of a particular religion? I have done my homework, this is the conclusion I have come too, show me greater knowledge, show me a hypothesis with greater explanatory power. I don't just want your opinion."As a whole" is just broadening the faith under scutany, obviously their are so many denominations and variances that they can't all share in the judgement, but I'm not going after them all, just the doctrines, which will effect in turn the faith’s standing.

 

I couldn't possibly come up with anything that would apply to all xtians, your cult is the most inconsistant religion on Earth, but that’s not what I am doing. My thesis is that there are central dontrines that are immoral, that results in a general trend. It covers certain exceptions, and is not 100% applicable to all the entire thing, but an accurate appraisale of your doctrines. Certainly what Bob Price calls the "sliding scale of inerrancy" means that various cultural conditions will create differances that range from flat earthers to evolutionary theologists, but this is due to external pressures, not just the faith's own nebulous state. The doctrines are still there, some ignored, some twisted, but plain reading reveals what they are.

On_the_inherent_immorality_of_Xtian_doctrine_part2.rtf

[- AUB -]

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.

 

Not the whole, the doctrines, the more they adhere to them the more immoralities they commit, the other denominations that don't commit these atrocities can be found to adhere less strictly to these doctrines. I do not think you're quite understanding my argument.

 

I think that both ends of that spectrum are simply what people choose to do with their theological beliefs for various reasons.

 

No, you use the term "various reasons", but you do not list them, all I am saying is the most important of these reasons are the doctrines.You're giving them too much individual power and responsibility, they are sheep remember? You may be relatively free of indoctrination and control, others are not, and although some are tools of evil priests, bishops and Parsons, many still are simply the product of the inhumane values of Christianity. There has to be something about Christianity itself to explain why its history is so much worse than all other ideologies. Sure it has many of the characteristics of Nazism, communism and Islam and all the other regimes that have killed millions of people, but it has shown a far greater capacity to sustain in many different forms, eras and conditions the same kind of brutality, only countered by secular enlightenment.

 

The larger the sample and the greater the number of test subjects the more accurate and representative the result will be, I ignore the exceptions to the rule and focus on what happens with a xianity over a large area and through the ages. The overall effect is continually negative, this implies that some element of Christianity when sufficiently dispersed and ingrained brings up bad results due to a predictable, testable and repeatable reaction with humanity. Others before me (Voltaire, McCabe, Celsus) have predicted atrocities ahead, and they have all been vindicated. This is a well-known phenomena, as comprehensible and reliable as the laws of physics. Where there is a xianity there is suffering, it is inevitable. Freethinkers have been pointing this out since a xianity first appeared, it is simply a fact that we except. The trick is getting xtians to see it, our evidence is overwhelming, but so is the evidence for Evolution, that doesn't stop xtians denying it. If the side with the greatest amount of evidence for their claims always won out of then religion would have died 3000 years ago, therefore we needed different strategies, in my case it is debate

 

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.

 

Sure blame it all on the individuals. We don't do this with Communism or Nazism, yet you are asking me to do it with a xianity, that is special pleading. In a city one day, if 10,000 xtian's committed 10,000 identical atrocities, do we hold each individual accountable for their individual crime, and simply lock the 10,000 up, with not another thought? Or do we investigate the cause of these mass evils, tracing them back to their source, the movement, the leader, a belief system? It's irresponsible not to do so, because it would simply happen again with a fresh 10,000. They didn't just blame the suicides of the Heaven's Gate cult on the suicidees, they blamed Applewhite and the cult itself, it’s tactics, methods, teachings. The Japanese Government didn't just blame the nerve gas bombings in the underground on those directly responsible, but on the leader and the Om cult itself, hence his imprisonment and the illegality of the cult. Their entire worldview was irrational, obsessive and dangerous, therefore it was recognised as being a menace to society. They didn't just see individuals involved, they saw the larger picture, they saw the chain of cause and effect.

 

What you ask would allow Nazism to spread across Europe again, on the assumption that only each Nazi during the Second World War can be blamed for their crimes, and not be ideology itself? We in Europe do not see it that way, indeed many in my country hold xianity responsible for the crimes of the past. This a responsible and consistent attitude, it would be foolish to do it any other way. Islam sucks, communism sucks, Nazism sucks, and xtianity sucks, there is no difference, there are no exceptions. The consistent pattern of abuse within an individual counts towards a judgment on that individual, I simply apply this reasonable practice to institutions and worldviews. You cannot possibly guarantee that the next 2000 years will have even half the horrors of xianity's past. The best thing we can do is simply end the experiment. We do not have the right to risk our children's lives on the chance that your religion is truly reformed, just because some of you are housetrained. It does not erase the past, and these fundies are a reminder that history can repeat. No matter how advanced or enlightened we get, we can still always revert, society is only three meals away from revolt, religion is only three laws away from an inquisition. Better safe than sorry.

 

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.

 

This doctrine alone has been the cause of millions of deaths, absolutism and exclusivism are immoral as they inevitably lead to division, conflict and intolerance. To make such a claim is irresponsible, and also dishonest as it is purely matter of faith, not objective fact. It's not like there hadn't been religious conflicts prior to Christianity, it's founders knew full well that violence would have resulted, and it may well have been the primary intention. Xianity as it is today is the version of xtianity that won out over it's rivals through violence derived from this position. If you study the other versions, gnosticism for example, you will see that they lacked this exclusivism and were thusly annihilated, survival of the fittest. (In the Nazi not Darwinian sense) Such denominational flaws appeared early enough to be interpolated into the gospels or just added as Pseudepigraphical epistles.

 

However, for someone of the Baha'I Faith will disagree as that faith defines things differently as well.

 

They merely use different tactics, like the Hare Krishnas and Sikhs they prefer to absorb rather than annihilate, inclusive rather than exclusive, and as a result they have a far less to be ashamed of. The creators of these religions were wise and farsighted, the creators of Christianity were inconsiderate bastards. When those who are immoral write immoral words which are a reflection of their immorality, precisely designed to spread and encourage further immorality it can be said that these words, ideas and doctrines are themselves immoral. This may hear to be a fanciful interpretation but I think it is well justified.

 

But yes, I know that is beside the point and we're discussing Christianity.

 

Yes but your counter example serves to highlight the difference between Christianity and other religions, and precisely what makes it so unethical and dangerous. Christianity has a violent history because of such attitudes and doctrines, these religions lack them and thusly a bloody past and future, it is extremely clear and straightforward.

 

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.

 

Jolly good. If your denomination has become more like these other religions, and turned it's back on these dangerous doctrines, that may make you exempt from my hypothesis, however it does not render the doctrines themselves exempt, the thesis still applies. It is precisely because they are self-evidently dangerous and immoral that your denomination has abandoned these principles. Your attempt to defend your beliefs and that of your denomination only proves my point. These doctrines will always be around for other groups to use, until humanity is made to recognise their true nature.

 

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.

 

In many ways it was actually, it had many occult elements, and belief in a high power, manifest destiny and the demigod that was their Hitler. They duplicated Cathedral environments at their rallies, and like religions attempting to re-write history and creat a mythology about a special race. Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, he knew all about their doctrines, but he demonstrated an opposing worldview. His good behaviour precisely demonstrates how evil Nazism was, because it was an inversion of its policies. It is not the behaviour of a member that determines a group's status, it is how that behaviour relates to the common or central principles.

 

But I also feel the same towards bad people in a group.

 

There are many people who's behaviour does not represent the group, however you appear to simply assume that a bad Christian does not represent Christianity, a priori. My thesis is that bad Christian's are (at least in part) compelled to be so out of adherence to doctrine. In the same way a creationist is forced by the logical end result of their inerrantism to declare that dinosaurs are still alive. I have traced a direct link between bad Christians and Christianity, you have to show that this connection is invalid, not simply state that a bad person doesn't necessarily mean that his group is bad, it does not necessarily mean it isn't either.

 

If I can show that good Christians behave out of step with their dogma, and the catalyst of many Christian atrocities can be directly traced to specific dogmas, (which I have done a great many times), then my argument is logically sound, you have yet to make any dent in it.

[- AUB -]

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.

 

And if an entire group or nation collectively commits an immoral atrocity, should they still just be judged individually, ignoring the context? You're simply taking a divide and conquer approach to the getting your cult of the hook. This is no different to all the atrocities of your religion being blamed on mankind's "sin". It is missing the obvious, these are not just individual acts of immorality, they involve vast numbers of people as well. They involve patterns of behaviour over centuries, with certain types of atrocities committed by certain denominations. It can't be simply divided into each individual's motives. Also if I trace the sources for their behaviour and it does lead xtian doctrine then that needs to be considered. If you are claiming that Christianity cannot claim credit for the actions of any of its members then it is a rather (ethically) meaningless organisation. This reminds me of when theists try to dodge the claim that god is immoral (from his OT behaviour) so they try to claim he cannot be morally judge at all, thusly rendering him a amoral, and unworthy of worship, a desperate tactic.

 

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.

 

This is the problem, first you've not actually done so, and secondly they may both credit their behaviour to Christianity, but never to precisely the same interpretation or understanding of it. If one person interprets a specific doctrine (which I argue is inherently immoral) as a green light for immorality, and the other does not, I can easily demonstrated that the latter individual was guided by conscience and secular values, which negates the doctrine's effect. He may still contribute his activity to Christianity, but only due to his liberal indoctrination. Falsely attributing credit is a major theistic trademark, it proves nothing.

 

Your simplistic thinking fails to take into account every conceivable factor. Again Oscar Schindler was a Nazi, if he attributed his actions to Nazism would you conclude that it wasn't dangerous? It is an ideology that “created” good and bad people, however a great many Nazis were ignorant of its ramifications, or its details. Others knew of it but were simply in denial, these people may do good and falsely attributed it to Nazism, ignorant of the irony. You cannot simply assume you have correctly identified the source of their behaviour, or that the source is rendered harmless and is truly represented by the behaviour of good people.

 

You need to study the ideology itself rather than blindly assume because you have met a good Nazi then Nazism itself can't be bad. Your also using another tactic, attempting to negate bad with good, but it doesn't work that way, any more than pointing to the horrors of communism negates xtian history. Your simply using the good behaviour has an excuse to ignore the bad, it doesn't account for it. It can't simply be down to the individual if it occurs too many times. This is not about something not being bad if it is capable of producing good. Or something only been bad if the majority of its adherents are bad. As I have already shown the good may not truly know what they are following or may be acting contrary to the doctrine's intentions.

 

Let me break it down.

 

Step 1. You study a doctrine and if reason and logic dictates that it may have potential dangers you then search for its effects in human behaviour.

 

Step 2. If negative behaviour is found, and if it can be directly attributed to that doctrine then the thesis grows stronger. You also need to verify that the behaviour is not due to external influence. However a bad Pastor can indeed find a a bible quote in order to corrupt a congregation, however that quote may be one all good pastors avoid, if so it can still be argued to be immoral which is why it was used.

 

Step 3. If good behaviour is found, then needs to be determined how much it is really connected to the doctrine. If the person is ignorant of it, or influenced for the better by external sources then the thesis remains.

 

Every factor needs to be taken into consideration. However I did it the other way round, I encountered so many atrocities in xtian history that I became determined to trace their sources, in order to determine why this pattern cept occuring. This was more time-consuming as I had to trace every atrocity to specific doctrines, and determine whether they had been used to do good, and study their origins in order to determine their initial purpose. "Good" versions of xtianity tend to use certain bible quotes and doctrines, whereas "bad" versions tend to use others, this demonstrates that it is more than just the same doctrine interpreting differently. Certain doctrines tend (such as exclusivism) to lead to certain attitudes. Though theists are experts at twisting things beyond all recognition, and I've no doubt there are liberal theists who can take the most immoral doctrine and try to make out it is good, a plain reading of the text is more intellectually honest. (And as previously mentioned the original authors intentions can sometimes be established).

 

Is not the Final Solution an immoral doctrine? It was created by evil to commit and justify evil, and if I can show the doctrines of xtianity had similer origins as well as effects, then I think I've made my point.

 

"No one comes to my father but through me" this was written in order to monopolise religious worship of god, to the detriment of all other religions, only the naive would think otherwise. The writers of the Gospels were second century apologists seeking to re-affirm current thinking, theology and the ambitions of the primitive churches, (peter = rock = church etc). Though this arrogant idea was a later development it was taken by the more intolerant bishoprics and as soon as they had any power enforced it brutally, on "heretics" then pagans and eventually Jews.

 

You can see the later NT books get worse and worse. 2 John 1:7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

 

This show these doctrines were not throwaway alternatives but the very heart of the early church. Doctrine is xtianity, if they are evil then so is the faith, as even in the 2nd. century they were demeaning other xtians for not believing in precisely the same doctrine.

 

1:9 "Whosoever ... abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God."

 

It was an exclusivistic dogma, that not only sort to oust the Jews as god’s chosen but any other interpretation of xtianity from existence. It's danger is obvious, and as I refuse to give the manipulative demagogue scribes the benefit of the doubt (based on many other examples of insidious re-writing of history, fraud and manipulation) I can only conclude that they intended such results. In the 2nd century there were many different xtianities, some anti OT, some believed the holy spirit visited all believers, (so there was no need for bishops and popes), and one group believed in strict hierarchies, organisation and control. This one inevitably won, not by being more pious, decent or true, but intolerant, and power hungry. The later gospel interpolations and epistles show such ambition, these are the most dangerous, and reflect the tyranny to come, as it helped build it. Jesus’ teachings were coded instructions on liturgy, and general church practice, a narrative version of Paul’s commands, set in an earlier time, with a mythical mouthpiece. This much is established, but the Roman church wanted more and they were able to get some beneficial dogmas into the NT itself. Others came via later church fathers, and bulls, but all show a greedy and vicious mentality.

 

The barbaric history of the Catholic Church is far more constant than those who idealise it’s origins would have you believe. The early NT writers may not have had such designs in mind, (no more than most mind control cults). As they saw it as their job to prepare for the end of the world. But the later churches realised, (after it failed to arrive) that they were in it for the long haul. So out went the poverty and chastity, in went pagan style ceremonies, dogmatic dictates and the need to control every aspect of a believer’s life, from birth to grave. (Hence for e.g. hostility to lesbians and feminists, as they represent a break in the chain of command used to keep women in line). The gospels show clear signs of this transition. The spirituality becomes temporal, and starts to resemble the cynically exploitative practice that typifies xtianity right up to today. Matthew’s misrepresentation of OT, to creationist’s misrepresentation of science, all built on the knowledge that your average xtian is too credulous and ignorant to know when they are being lied to. Hell, I show more respect for the minds of theists than their leaders!

 

What follows are samples of bible quotes I consider immoral, as I’ve dealt with doctrines, both bible and later church derived, I need to show the rot set in early.

 

"Let his blood be upon us and our children" And anti-Semitism was borne. Apart from being a ridiculous transference of a pagan human sacrifice ceremony, given to Jews to say during Jesus’ "trial", it clearly sought to blame his death not only on the Jews then but always. It was certainly used that way up until very recently. The "collective blood guilt" has haunted these people for so long, (pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, ghettos, expulsions, scape-goating, etc) and contributed to the holocaust. Hitler used Jesus’ death and the NT’s views to justify his attitude to Jews, (however cynically) and the main elements in the build-up, from marriage restrictions to yellow stars was straight out of the Catholic king’s policies, (Edward I etc) This one sentence certainly has a lot to answer for.

 

No amount of spin can claim this to be a tragic misunderstanding of the writer’s intentions. He meant to separate the xtian horde from those who could demonstrate the dishonest nature of the appropriation of their theology, as they did with intellectuals, scientists and sceptics by writing "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" and "love not the world" as the materialistic philosophers being more moral and often able to debunk xtian claims (Celsus) had to be demonised and shunned.

 

This culminated in the barbaric xtians wiping out all philosophers, burning all books and banning education, next stop, dark-ages. This attitude continued with pagans in the middle ages, (becoming witches) women, (becoming witches) and gays, (becoming burnt) and carries on today with humanist bashing, atheist hating, liberal chastising, scientist straw manning bile. You may disapprove of these “fundy” xtians but they are your faith, with no secular restraints, for we atheists and intellectuals are the good guys, we always have been, and you owe us. We had to fight the church for every improvement, scrap of knowledge and form of progress, without us xtianity would still be keeping us all in serfdom under barons and kings, and the world would still be flat. The cornerstones of Western civilisation are pre and post xtian achievements. No virtue, from democracy to rights comes from your faith, and when it goes, we’ll have lost nothing.

 

You may disapprove of fundies keeping women chained to a stove, but they have Colossians 3:18 and many more rants to support them, what have you got? Beating your kids is OK so sayeth Proverbs 23:13-14. As an atheist I can see this, and am forced to except the fundies are real xtians, an as such your cult has no redeeming features. You are not a product of the bible thanks to cog-dis, your values are enlightenment ones.

 

"If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." How many families have been destroyed due to this teaching? Its the typical strategy of cults, (heaven’s Gate etc) they always separate the follower from family first, so as to detach them from help, and reality. Study cults, then read the NT, you’ll see it’s many blueprints for cultic practices, which always cause suffering. This is one of the many coded instructions in the NT that makes my skin crawl, at least the OT just says what it wants.

 

"I came not to send peace but a sword" was an appropriate line, as the sword became synonymous with the cross for centuries afterwards, (hence the shape), Constantine’s “by this conquer” cross of fire, the sword Jesus bares in revelations, the arms he makes his followers buy then hypocritically rebukes them for having. The swords being held aloft as an xtian symbol by barbaric knights. It certainly shows how a supposed symbol of hope and sacrifice can so easily becomes a instrument of death in another way.

 

We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone, so much for morality. “Jesus” got more annoyed by those who didn’t show enough blind belief than anything else. “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?” As one who knows that liars always rely on the faith cop-out to convince others, I find this attitude very suspicious. Those who speak the truth rely on facts to convince, those who lie rely on faith.

 

And so forth, all amount to a horrible system, built on many terrible ideas. I call them immoral, and inherently so as they were created for such inhumane purposes and are always used thus. Give me counter examples. Tell me what’s good about Jesus saying his awfully written parables are so bad because he wants people to not understand so they go to hell? (author of confusion?) Mark 4:11-12 Matthew 13:10-15 (spin, as they are actually bad due to being re-worked Josephus accounts). However it displays a sadistic glee xtians developed concerning the torment of non-believers, that all of a sudden today is denied. So many xtians now find the idea of eternal torture unconscionable, yet for so long it never bothered you lot at all. That is due to the fact that the faith was built on the condemnation of all outsiders, (as previously shown) with no compassion for the heathen let alone those who actually do wrong. This and so many traits that defined your faith from the NT onwards are now ignored. This has allowed the liberals to think they are what xtianty is really about, even though they are but a modern mutation, maybe a temporary one. If Hell isn’t a immoral idea, what is? Yet your Jesus preached it, so how are you an xtian?

 

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.

 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

 

Fallacy of analogy, (but thanks for using a rare one) therapy is a science that being an amoral technique like all science can be abused. We are talking about a religion here, a subjective montage of dogmas, ideas and doctrines, none of which are objective, so none can be defended as fact, (For e.g. no matter how immoral the use of the A-bomb may have been, it was still proof of atomic physics) Whereas these dogmas are meant to be divine, and good, so when they screw up, it counts towards the hypothesis that they are not. Science in general is not meant to do good as it is descriptive, not prescriptive, with no moral implications. Therapy is meant to do good yes, but even a pain killer can kill, it’s still a humane invention by its origins and purpose. Xtianity cannot be similarly argued to be created for good, and we’d already dealt with the amoral aspects of it. But when it does wrong this may not be down to abuse of it, but due to a problem such as harmful doctrines, this I have shown.

 

You assume, erroneously that the same doctrines are used for both good and evil, whereas I can show that immoral denominations and individuals use one set of bible quotes, and emphasise certain doctrines while other more civilised, (or secularised) version use others. However you are defending the religion has a whole, not it’s doctrines, hence the comparison. But my claim is that even on this level your faith can still be considered immoral if those that do good are not truly representing the faith. They may be doing it in the name of the faith, but are unaware or ignoring enough of the elements, doctrines etc to be a poor enough example for disqualification.

 

 

I also don’t think the bible is deliberately inconsistent.

 

I do, all things to all people, gentile seeking Paul and Luke, Jew seeking Matthew etc, they were aware of each other's tactics, and hoped to cast the net as wide as possible. It’s also a product of many differing schools being put together in one book, because they could be re-interpreted to be the same revelation, just. But they often betray the differences, (almost as much as the non-canonical at times). As a mythicist I am more aware of this than most, as I can see just how different Pauline xtianity was, before the re-invention of Jesus as a historical person.

 

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.

 

So true, weak, immoral, crazed, and backward men, yet you follow it.

 

Now if women had written it….   

 

There’d probably be less examples of a pathological fear and hatred of woman.

 

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 ; )

 

Glad you’re not that nuts.

[- AUB -]

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.

 

Splitting semantic hairs perhaps?

 

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.

 

Then look more carefully, you can’t just blame each person when an entire nation, or ideology or regime, or philosophy or religion or continent goes off and does something horrid. Sure, try each WW2 Japanese soldier for war crimes, (but let the Emperor off Scot-free, bloody Yanks) but you need to recognise the corruption Bushido, Shinto and Zen Buddhism had undergone, remove it and make sure the mind set is gone.

 

http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm

 

Is an interesting example of why Buddhism is better than xtianity. With xtians you either ignore, deny or throw up communism in response to the atrocities of your past, but Buddhists see their past crimes and take stock. (As they don’t claim to be a divinely guided faith, so such a history does not negate their claims). They pause, introspect, they don’t just blame the Japanese or individuals, or humanity’s “sin”, nore do they give up on their faith. They at least look to see if there something to answer for, if there is any aspect of their beliefs, no matter how inherent or central or established that may have contributed to these horrors. They except responsibility and consider reform or removal of bad elements. I’ve never seen xtians do this, sure you get liberals saying they’d never doing anything like that, or it wasn’t xtianity’s fault, (the crusades where political, economic etc) but never do I find a mature and responsible attitude. You’re just keen to get it out the way as soon as possible, hence the lame excuses. Yours are not as bad as most, but you still display no introspection on the matter at all. You’re scared of what you’ll find.

 

(On a side note Buddhism like Judaism is from my perspective a load of mystical bull, but at least it works. It can be said to be an esoteric interpretation of things that are real, for e.g. Zen trances are scientifically proven to alter brain waves, and the Bodhisattva principal does have a rational and ethical application).

 

 

I don’t think the suffering is limited to exchristians alone, or even nonchristians.

 

Yes, the group that has most persecuted xtians is other xtians, you should be on my side! (This fact alone proves my point).

 

 

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.

 

This habit of fixatedly interfering on other people’s private lives has been an xtian trademark since the early Popes, and of course started with the OT’s analy attentive interest in social and sexual behaviour. Anyway carry on.

 

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?

 

Cuz they’re bigoted assholes, who, (like all theists) can always use the bible to justify the evil of the week.

 

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.

 

That is what happens not why. Intolerance can’t just be put down to intolerant leaders. Intolerance plays a part as well methinks.

 

Most of how they treat these people isn’t backed up in the Bible

 

Really? Close enough, (You are reading the one with god in it aren’t you?) they can’t stone or burn them anymore so they settle for dragging America’s reputation through the very stinky mud some other way.

 

as “The Way To Treat Anyone Who Isn’t Heterosexual.”

 

It’s pretty clear they aren’t to be tolerated, the punishment cannot be exacted so they just settle for intolerance.

[- AUB -]

So they see it as sin (and we both probably scoff at that and roll our eyes)

 

But not for the same reasons, sin does not exist but is one of those immoral doctrines, remember? But the bible does regard it as thus, and therefore so should you, xtian.

 

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.

 

Apart from the fact that you cannot change gays into non-gays, and that it’s been scientifically proven to be genetic. What they do to gays amounts to abuse, yes. But the problem is (apart from the fact that the bible doesn’t give you any reason to think they can be “saved” it just says kill them) if you could change them, then this does makes sense within the twisted world of xtian doctrine. Sure it contradicts a number of other doctrines but far less than liberal xtian pick n’ choose bible reading.

 

But there is something other than the Bible and the central tenants of Christianity at play here.

 

Something AS WELL AS. Don’t try to get the bible of the hook because of ulterior motives, it still says “kill gays” in black and white, sure there where political and economic (plunder) reasons for the crusades but without xtian mythology do you see them tramping thousands of miles into the middle-east just to take some run down nowheresville city?

 

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.

 

As are you, and as in the “kill gays” passage they couldn’t reinforce that if they (and some do) wanted to. There certainly have been cases of child abuse thanks to bible thumbing parents. They’re just not making a political thing about it as it out of step, (but then so should anti-gay stuff be). If some right wing Jesus freak tried this shit in my country, we’d hound him into the sea as a gay bashing hate monger, yet in the US its barely controversial. That’s how far your country has sunk thanks to xtain corruption. Who says they won’t start repealing child safety laws when they’ve got enough minds enslaved?

 

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.

 

More so given the swift punishment they’re given in the bible. Have you even read the relevant passages? I know there’s more to this than the bible being evil shit, but you won’t even except there’s any blame that way at all. This is what I object to, I don’t totally blame the bible, but you are trying too hard to save its neck.

 

So what is it that causes them to be so much more harmful to one group over others? Something else is at play.

 

Yes yes I get it, if fact I got it several years ago, its not like its a secret or anything.

 

That treatment isn’t found only in Christian groups, or even only in religious groups. So if the behaviour isn’t exclusive to Christianity or religious people, why do we blame Christianity or another religion for it alone?

 

I don’t, I blame xtianity when it’s to blame and other religions when they are. Obviously homophobia occurs in many cultures, but we got over it here, because we also got over religion, and other sanctimonious and judgmental crap. It’s still the xtians who are fuelling this gay bashing shite. Yes they’re playing on the fact that gay sex is icky, but they do have the bible to back it up, yes they selectively use it to justify there shit, but that’s what all denominations do. That is the point, the authoritarianism and absolutism of xtianity though hypocritically applied still does terrible harm. As science as vindicated gays only religion could serve as justification as it’s capable of turning people in a educated nation against objective facts.

 

Only religion could do this, whether it’s the catalyst or the tool, it’s still the lynchpin of the whole farce. It is a danger to decency, even if it was an innocent, (hardly) patsy for intolerant demagogues. Its existence alone, as a bible and god that nobody can challenge or question (and everybody can use for every agenda) takes the brakes off humanities ambitions. When Reason should hold us back, faith pushes us forward, always into bad things, on way or another. It either drives the train or greases the rails, just because it’s the later sometimes doesn’t mean it any less responsible for moving the train.

 

We can’t just blame humanity, individuals, or society alone anymore than we can blame religion, alone. I don’t ever do either, I take every factor into consideration, hence my thorough (or long if you like) writings, but the plain fact is xtianity is a tool of evil not just because people want it to be but because it can be so very easily, due to its doctrines, pliable yet absolute nature, and biblical content. There’s more than enough blame to go around, I’m just being fare, it is guilty, and you won’t get it off on a technicality.

 

We should put the individual in prison, but also ban the shit they use to commit the crime, were not talking gun control, as guns are inanimate objects, we’re talking ideas, words, concepts, messages, stories, worldviews that drag humanity down, consistently and predictably. Once it has been shown to be a lie, and immoral, that should be the end of it. You disarm the suspect before you arrest him, but you’d allow the weapon to remain in the individuals hands, and on the streets. Well that’s the US for ya, “rights” and “freedoms” come before life and common sense. You lot will “freedom” yourselves into extinction. It should at least be challenged, and opposed when it tries to take over.

 

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?

 

So what’s the problem? If these doctrines are immoral, then that makes the faith immoral, as they’re the essential elements without which the faith would cease to be the faith. Glad you’ve got it with that one, (these new-agey xtians and those who use the label but not the product just annoy me, especially when they try to use their “xtianity lite” to get the faith off the hook, oh wait that’s what you are doing). Now I just have to show these doctrines are immoral, and If I haven’t done so by now...

[- AUB -]

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- 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.

 

That’s not what I’m saying, the Eurythro dilemma (which you need to study) deals with the problem of Divine Command Theory, in brief if a god or gods define what is moral, how does it work? Do they define morality by their arbitrary actions or whim? In which case (like with Jason Gastrich) moral is whatever god does regardless of whether it appears moral by any basic decent standard, (i.e. its OK for him to commit genocide etc, as he’s god and thusly good by definition, and if you question his right to do so you are doubting the only source of moraly and are thusly a danger to society) Such a arbitary moral standard esspecialy given god’s example in the bible is clearly insane.

 

The other possibility is that there are moral rules outside and independent of god that he follows and is thusly moral, however other than as an example he’s irrelevant to ethics has we could just as easily have these moral rules ourselves and follow them directly, god is not a necessary. Both these positions most theists dislike, so they come up with the “oh he’s inherently moral” dodge which is meaningless semantic gibberish and shows a lack of understanding on what Plato was trying to say. Morality has to be the province of humanity, alone, or it creates more problems than it solves, hence all the evil commited in the name of morality by the world’s religions.

 

Then of course there are the problems with moral absolutism, and the fact that god is nothing more than the conjuring up authority or justification for whatever any theist wants. When you have a leader that never speaks you can claim he says anything. There are a great many other moral problems with god, left alone the bible the church and Jesus, but that’s enough for now.

 

what purpose would the devil have in their world?

 

That is easily answered in Judaism, he’s/it’s there to make it harder for us to choose the good in life, a tempter, sent by god so our triumph is thusly more meaningful when we achieve a state of good. Xtianity however make him a rival god, in Gnostic style he is the ruler of the world, and an enemy of even god, this goes against the OT doctrines, and is clearly a result of theological contamination, with many side effects. Devil worship for e.g., you don’t get that in Judaism, as he’s just a semi-metaphorical servant of god, and of course demonology, possession and witch paranoia. Also the use of the Devil as an excuse, almost as much as god, and the death toll keeps on rising.

 

 

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.

 

Pardon? My condemnation fails to apply to you but the hypothesis still does, at it includes the proviso that good “xtians” can be shown to be a product of other factors than doctrine. What have other faiths to do with it? The only issue you could have with this is an accusation of No True Scotsmen Fallacy which I’d have to defend with a tracing of influence, which I have done.

 

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?

 

It doesn’t, the other factors I’ve outlined do, this proviso covers theists like you, and it isn’t the main hypothesis.

You fit in the picture, as any good you do is no reflection of the faith. If there is good that results directly from xtian dogma I will have to note it, if there is any bad that is not directly a result of xtian dogma I will not that, these things alone would tell against my thesis. But a good person who is not guided by xtians dogma is not a threat to the hypothesis that only bad results from xtian doctine. Can I make it any plainer?

 

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.

 

This is the core of the matter, xtianity is wrong, you agree, but wish to preserve a superficial semblance of it, i.e. just the label and warm feelings for Jesus, and you think this makes you really xtian. By the definitions of the majority denominations today and historically as well as the NT itself you don’t fit the bill, so when I say xtianity is immoral I am referring to those things you yourself also consider immoral, you don’t recognise that they are the faith, as it as been, is and will be by any meaningful definition. Hence my hostility to liberal xtianity as well, it’s a hypocritical farce, and makes no difference, you cannot save xtianity from the condemnation of history or truth. It is beyond any redemption and it would be irresponsible to try, as it would for Nazism or any other inherently immoral ideology.

 

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.

 

See? You need to understand what xtianity is, a mind control cult, that was created to manipulate the dregs of humanity and rose though force and fortune to conquer all it could. It has never been a good thing, not in any past era, and not now, you are a product of a positivist society, one prone to see good, even when there isn’t any, I know xtianity better than you or any other theist, and the truth is that thinking of Jesus as a good teacher and doing good in his name does not mean xtianity is not evil, it just means you’re not. (Evil or xtian) There are real believers who do good, but out of ignorance of their own faith, as it was ignorance of reality that deluded them into being xtian in the first place. Ignorace may be a defence in their case, but it does their religon no good. And even though there are some genuinely decent and moral things about the faith, they are contaminated by impure morals, and theological motives rather than humane ones. Looked at in isolation they are considered good, but within the full context of xtian doctrines they are negated. It cannot be considered 100% evil, but then neither was Hitler, technically, just far too much to be labelled anything else.

[- AUB -]

Next post

 

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.

 

If I was, that would be the correct procedure, identity is paramount in logic. Anyway it’s hardly my definition if everyone agrees with it, it is self evidently the basics. Any “xtians” outside that definition are irrelevant elements, and have already been dealt with. These doctrines regardless are immoral, in which case whichever xtian denominations emphasise them, they are thusly immoral, “Christianity” is a nebulous term these days so I’m just trying to make it clear by analysing the building blocks, which are easily defined. You’re still failing to deal with these condemnations and focusing on your religion as a whole, which I consider a dodge. It’s not like there are any denominations (‘cept the ultra liberal irrelevant ones) that lack all of them, and as all doctrines are immoral its just a matter of degrees between each denomination.

 

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.

 

Not half, this semantic thing is annoying, can’t I just call you lot pseudo-xtians? Save a lot of time.

 

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?

 

I’m right, there’s nothing wrong with agreeing with me.

 

 

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.

 

Good.

 

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?

 

Yes, absolutism is fundamental to your faith, the whole commandment, one god, exclusivist salvation thing is as absolutist as its gets, it’s behind a significant percentage of the horrors of xtian history and it current suck-factor. It is necessarily to xtianity, take it away and you might as well be a humanist. Even if the majority of xtians “reformed” into a benevolent movement, (some think it always has been) it would not erase history (though it’ll make it easier to argue it away) or remove all fundy groups, they will always exist as long as the faith as a whole exists. My main problem with your views though is that they are ill-educated and miss-informed, a bout of research would remove it all, as you lack the severe mental impediments. In some ways your are so near the truth, and yet you stick to falsehoods like Jesus being a historical moral teacher etc.( See my research in this area. http://www.humanism.me.uk/essays/Mythicism.htm ) In a non-theist a good lecture would remove such miss-information, with you more serious adjustment would be needed.

[- AUB -]

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.

 

Absolutism and Objectivism are mutually exclusive as objectivism is tentative and changes with new (empirical) information. Absolutism is (or thinks it is) static, but is really subjectivist opinion with pretensions.

 

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.

 

They think they are, as to them god is objective so therefore morals are, but this is just subjectivism on subjectism. The inconsistencies just show its just opinion and that there’s no Holy Ghost, as he/it would hardly tell each denomination they are each individually right in differing from each other. There is no single god, as there’s no single paradigm. All denominations are equally bull. It would be clear if one wasn’t, and no more than one could be as its all built on there being just 1 Way, so the division disproves the whole thing.

 

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.

 

Xtains have no claim to morality anyway.

 

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

 

You know, I’ve picked up on that.

 

You should have by now. Morality has to be based on truth to be right, justice may be blind but morality cannot be. It must not be built on a lie, or an inferior method of finding the truth, but the best, empiricism and reason. As religion is the opposite of both it is disqualified from ethicism.

 

 

Bingo, honestly you sound just like me sometimes

 

Should I be worried?

 

Not if you’re looking for total freedom from faith.

 

 

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

 

I certainly agree with that.

 

You’ve just contradicted most of the NT.

[- AUB -]

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.

 

Can’t they get other people to love them? Parents, partners, kids, friends etc, as a hermit I’ve learnt to do without, (a relationship is out the question, what female would live with someone they couldn’t win an argument with, ever?) filling the void with food, southpark etc. It would never occur to me to get love from a deity, (who’s that desperate? If I’m not, nobody is). Why do others who are able to live in society still need god-love, isn’t the human race enough? You can see it for a start.

 

They think that is the only way they can be reconciled with God.

 

That’s exclusivism for ya. And if the whole love thing doesn’t work, the threat of hell will.

 

It kinda goes with the whole “without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin” thing.

 

Doesn’t anyone ever ask why blood has to be shed? Ever?! This is a major part of my inability to believe, even when serving in a church, sacrificing people or animals is barbaric irrational crap. Yet they take it for granted that it has to be done, commend Jesus for being that sacrifice and never ask why god wanted it so, he’s left out of the whole crucifixion thing altogether, as it clearly raises too many questions. (count his NT appearances)

 

But also lets them not have to shed any more blood, supposedly anyway.

 

When of course in practice... Animal sacrifice only ever applied to Jews anyway, and only for inadvertent “sins”, the theology brake from OT to NT is colossal.

 

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.

 

That’s okay then. It’s hard to tell with you what you believe.

 

 

Why is the Bible so damn long?

 

You got me on that one. No clue.

 

Cuz it’s a Jewish theology/cultural manual and fake history mixed with gentile cult and liturgy intructions.

[- AUB -]

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.

 

I can and have given many examples,

 

Heavily indirectly attributed perhaps.

 

That’s often down to interpretation of the author’s intentions.

 

Unless someone else has something in mind or an agenda to bring on their own

 

All 4, its an accumulative process, hence the really nasty stuff.

 

“Jesus wept” cannot be directly responsible for something.

 

Hence my “barely”, though this line has with it some insidious theology.

 

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.

 

How can we “know” short of reading the mind of the writer? I’ve shown with Soil and others that what they see in passages is what they are meant to. Whereas I (and others) have been able to determine a hidden agenda behind a lot of the NT, by studying the context and methods of cults. The whole thing is rotten, a few benign quotes here or there doesn’t change that. Even the ones with no inhumane purpose can still be harmful given the effect brought about by the rest of it. It’s inevitable, as you pointed out “Jesus wept” can be warped, but not just due to an individual’s agenda but the way xtianity has of twisting everything. Or else why does this happen so often with this faith in particular?

 

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.

 

Faith is just a word, (with too many applications, theists love to use that in fallacial arguments) what I’m referring to the particular emphasis on belief in the invisible and unproven, (or even disproven) particularly when it has life and ethical consequences. Just believing in such stuff as Jesus and god is not immoral, just irrational and foolish, but any actions based on it is irresponsible, and action against others is immoral. (By definition as to act in accordance with “morals” based on unobjective and unreasoned views is to act without any real thought as to moral consequences at all).

 

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.

 

An example of an immorality not derived from faith doesn’t prove anything regarding faith. Again fallacy of analogy, you still think to much like a theist, badly.

[- AUB -]

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.

 

That was a more general inquiry.

 

 

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.

 

I feel it is necessary as we need to deal with as many angles regarding this issue as possible. Breadth of view. I also got to explain that passages purpose, serving as an example of the tactics the inventors of xtianity used.

 

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?

 

Yes. And what have you got against individuals, are you part of a hive mind or something?

 

 

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.

 

Jesus did, or rather his inventors wanted the followers to, if you defy their intentions, you can hardly represent the cult’s core nature.

 

As far as the whole rich person in flames- I think that isn’t the point and that wealth isn’t the issue.

 

??? You’re kidding? Just how much do you warp this stuff? Remember the camel and the needle? It was a Communist doctrine, as practised by the first 2 centuries of xtians, and only dropped when Constantine threw money at them and like the hypocrites they are, became the class they despised. Now Communism’s out of fashion xtians try to ignore both their history and the socialist teachings Jesus was made to say to justify the structure they had. (It got really Maoist in acts).

[- AUB -]

But again, that’s a discussion about my beliefs and not those of Christianity as you see it.

 

As it is and was! You are just ignorant of the fact that your view is a modern aberration, going agasint everything xtianity has stood for. Study.

 

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.

 

None of it can be attributed to Jesus, but that’s another story. Do you chuck out everything not in more than one gospel? Or is this just pick ‘n choose in action? Besides it does confirm other teachings, and the general attitude of early xtians, again study.

 

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.

 

There’s plenty of other similar Jesus quotes on hell, Matthew is full of them, and the Jews had a burning hell (Sheol) centuries earlier, though it was temporary. The xtians just combined it with the hellenist underworld were everyone goes forever, and voila, eternal suffering! Back dated to the beginning, (funny how Jews never seemed worried about it) and you just need someone to save you from it, “Wait, who’s this? Jesus you say? Worship him and I get to live forever without scorch marks? Wow, thanks! I’ll just scoop out my brains and sign up!” Etc. They just invent the problem to sell their solution, like Xerox when they invented photocopy machines so they could sell toner cartridges.

 

 

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.

 

Yet there are those who quote out of context (xtians) and even consider not taking a parable literally the same as accusing Jesus of being a liar. (baptists) And don’t blame later developments, the entire thing encourages blind and irrational faith at every turn. Such warped paradigms were inevitable. Do I need to mention that Jesus steals a donkey straight after this parable? (Two in matthew, he he) Makes a prophecy that betrays the late writing, beats some guys at the temple (though Luke tries to underplay it) based on a OT quote but has no real reason to do so , as they were just doing their jobs, and fails to detect a conspiracy due to having too many fans, (so much for omniscience).

 

And that wasn’t even one critiquing the social order- there are other ones for that.

 

Yes, and others that suck up, (render unto Caesar etc) you don’t expect consistency so you? These were different writers from different schools making this stuff up, not reporting anything. There’s no single Jesus or story but similar motifs reworked, put together against their intentions, none more legitimate than any other.

 

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.

 

Tell that to your brethren. I can read the bible, I’ve no faith to warp it, they can only warp it. Anyway I can see what he’s saying, but this is the bible, people always take it way too seriously, and using a cruel Lord to make a point that’s supposed to be good is a very odd way to do it, but most of the parables are terrible. (If you knew how they created them you wouldn’t be surprised) They lacked foresight at the very least.

 

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.

 

I don’t need a lesson, Luke 19 is full of problems (And it’s not clear the “slay them” bit was part of the parable, it’s irresponsible at least to be so unclear, you can’t deny the many wars over such unclear writings)

 

19:26 “For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.” How is this fare? And how can you take anything away from someone that has nothing? That’s, impossible, this irrational capitalistic stuff, (if only in a spiritual sense) contradicts a great many of the more egalitarian passages that I happen to agree with. It annoys me when people just take them and ignore these bits, or use these bits, (Republicans) to justify capitalism when the money is a metaphor. It’s ridiculous, you don’t get this with lucid secular philosophy. We don’t have this urge to warp, and the material doesn’t allow it anyway.

 

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.

 

But why do xtians keep twisting it? I say it’s due to the inherent nature of the whole thing. A culture of subjective selfish demagogues or witless slaves. You seem to expect this corruption, treat it as the norm, well if that were the case then xtianity is just as incapable of improving humanity as any other institution, telling against its divine origins. But that’s not what we have here, these kinds of warping occur only in degenerate ideologies, (Nazi’s with warped evolution, Communists with social theory, Muslims with Koran passages) that have so many flaws that such dishonesty and self serving corruption is always to be found. You need to stop blaming humanity, that’s xtian conditioning talking not reason, you’re letting the workmen blame his tools.

 

 

AUB - Godsmacker

 

 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...indpost&p=31385

 

To go back to start of post.

[BigToe]

First of all my name is Erin, not xtian. Secondly, I hardly care if you think I am ignorant or whatever. You can think I know the bible as little as you want. But you kinda made my point. One doesn't have to take something literally to be well acquainted with it and know it as well or better than a literalist. You said that you and others on this site have taken fundies to town because you know it better. Because I interpret it metaphorically doesn't mean I cannot do the same.

 

That is honestly as far as I have time to respond. I've been dealing with a family crisis. Hopefully I will be able to return and read the rest of this within the next few weeks. But if you are trying to "win" something (from liberal theists sticking around longer than fundies statement) then you go go win whatever you think is going on. I honestly just wanted to gain an understanding of where you were coming from. I wasn't trying to change your opinion or convert you. Those are two things I wouldn't ever try.

 

You don't think I'm christian enough? Then fuck it, I won't be christian. There are so many things so much more important than bickering over how harmful some religion may or may not be.

 

Now, I need to deal with real life. Hopefully I will be able to return shortly. I am not trying to ignore your words. I just don't have time to read long posts, let alone numerous ones and respond to them. I am sorry for that.

 

-Erin

[Guest Slayer-2004]

any christians interested in such a debate would probobly be scared of this place .

[diggin]

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

 

I guess I should assume God does exist.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Keep thinkin, Asimov!

 

But we're discussing Christianity....

3037[/snapback]

 

 

Good answers. It only took me 7 months to notice your reply!

 

Here's my 2 cents:

 

Christians, according to evangelicals, are not held accountable. They are forgiven once and for all. I think the Bible states the opposite... that Christians are acountable, indeed, are the only ones whose sins must be dealt through the arrangement of faith and obedience.

 

Non-Christians, on the other hand, are not accountable now. There will be accountability in the next age, but not in the fatalistic sense advocated by mainstream churchianity. People will be given the opportunity to actually experience a God-supervised, clearly explained course of conduct, and will be taught "God's ways".

 

So to summarize, take opposite of the mainstream Christian teaching on both points, and you'll be pretty close to what the Bible says on the topic.

[Celsus]

Diggins,

 

I often wonder why Christians wasnt to debate internal issues with Chritianity with Ex or Non-Christians. Your argument, while it may be interesting, presupposes the existence of Yahweh. Secondly, it presupposes a man named Jesus actually existed, who may or may not have been Yahweh in a human incarnation. While an Ex or Non Christian may believe in Yahweh (Jewish or Noahide) and may believe Jesus existed, none would agree that Jesus was Yahweh incarnated. Most Ex and Non-Christians, in my experience do not belive that Yahweh exists and some believ that Jesus may have existed, but only as a human. You argument would be comparable to a Muslim wanting to debate the characteristics of Jinns with Non-Muslims.

 

So like an earlier poster, please provide proof that Yahweh exists. Until then, the rest of your arguments are pointless.

 

Bruce