Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Doctordien
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:25 am

Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Doctordien » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am

Christianity's Immoral Foundation

In the US, no one would seriously consider a law that called for the punishment of a child for the acts committed by the child's parents, especially if the acts ccurred before the child was born. People would be outraged at such a law, even Christians. Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines. Somehow, an Adam and an Eve screwed up, and people born thousands of years later must pay the price for their mistake. I have a difficult time imagining a third-grader accepting this premise, much less an omnipotent being dedicating its existence to promoting such a perversion of justice. An individual can only control his or her own actions, and can only be responsible for his or her own actions. No individual alive today had anything to do with what people did thousands of years ago. But, Christians teach that the sin of Adam and Eve passes through our blood lines, therefore, making us co-conspirators in a crime that took place long ago. And because we are co-conspirators, we need to be saved by the magical Jesus, or else suffer a fate worse than anything Charles Manson could imagine.

My challenge for Christians is to explain how it is moral to hold people responsible for acts that occurred before they were even born. And, if you cannot make such a showing, then the entire premise of Christianity rests upon an immoral foundation. So, why should anyone accept its immoral premise in order to be saved?

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by QuantumT » Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:22 pm

To understand christianity, you must first understand judaism, wich is largly inspired by the ancient faiths of the summerians and the greeks. Sin however, was a jewish invention. It was invented as an explanation for lifes cruelty and the lack of contact with the devine (not that the devine was ever there).

Basicly life sucks because we upset God, and she/he can't get over it (sounds familiar?).
The jews had only one option to smooth things out, sacrifice an animal (back then animals were valuable goods, like our money today).
Btw judaism has no Hell as we understand it.

Enter Jesus. He said we should treat eachother nicer, be pacifists, and not worry about all the rules so much. Nice guy! But he made trouble, and the romans killed him. His fans didn't like that, so they invented alot of stories about him. They made him the prince of the universe. Crazy stuff.

Enter Paul. He was an orthodox jew. He took it upon himself to organize all these stories and dogmas about Jesus. And he did, didn't he!? He practicly invented Hell and Satan. He made sure everybody knew they were sinners. He made the path to Heaven long and winding. He turned christianity into an ordeal.

So, in my opinion Paul is the culprit. He turned a hippies messages into a thick soup of guilt and shame. Shame on Paul.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Serendipper » Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:15 am

Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines.
You may want to read this: Above Genetics: How your behaviour can affect your DNA

And:

Direct comparisons of identical twins constitute an optimal model for interrogating environmental epigenetics. In the case of humans with different environmental exposures, monozygotic (identical) twins were epigenetically indistinguishable during their early years, while older twins had remarkable differences in the overall content and genomic distribution of 5-methylcytosine DNA and histone acetylation.[8] The twin pairs who had spent less of their lifetime together and/or had greater differences in their medical histories were those who showed the largest differences in their levels of 5-methylcytosine DNA and acetylation of histones H3 and H4.[117] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Twins

So, yep, next question :D

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Walker » Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:17 am

Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
An individual can only control his or her own actions, and can only be responsible for his or her own actions.
Yeah. Charlie Manson and Hitler didn't personally kill anyone.

Give them both a f**king pass with some b/s for justification.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:53 pm

Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
Christianity's Immoral Foundation

In the US, no one would seriously consider a law that called for the punishment of a child for the acts committed by the child's parents, especially if the acts ccurred before the child was born. People would be outraged at such a law, even Christians. Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines. Somehow, an Adam and an Eve screwed up, and people born thousands of years later must pay the price for their mistake. I have a difficult time imagining a third-grader accepting this premise, much less an omnipotent being dedicating its existence to promoting such a perversion of justice. An individual can only control his or her own actions, and can only be responsible for his or her own actions. No individual alive today had anything to do with what people did thousands of years ago. But, Christians teach that the sin of Adam and Eve passes through our blood lines, therefore, making us co-conspirators in a crime that took place long ago. And because we are co-conspirators, we need to be saved by the magical Jesus, or else suffer a fate worse than anything Charles Manson could imagine.

My challenge for Christians is to explain how it is moral to hold people responsible for acts that occurred before they were even born. And, if you cannot make such a showing, then the entire premise of Christianity rests upon an immoral foundation. So, why should anyone accept its immoral premise in order to be saved?
And the field of genetics does not argue for certain traits to be limited within certain populations under a secular version of euthanasia, gene therapy, or genetic alteration?

Would it be less moral to be able to commit an act, good or bad, that has no repercussions or after effects? Would morality have any structure unless it in itself acted as "a" (not "the") cause for further effects?

If Christianity is immoral, okay, but what is the standard measuring point from which morality is determined?

Last time I checked, these laws existed in a time where corresponding religions practiced ritual sacrifice of their children. Under these terms, the whole of human nature, in regards to both conscience and consciousness, had a very "hard" outlook on the nature of life...a hardness we are currently seeing revived today. Considering the christian faith also argued that these laws were not just transcended, but fulfilled and deemed unnecessary, due to crucifixion and resurrection one cannot argue that these laws are mandatory nor practiced within all Christian (or even Judaic and Muslim) sects.

In regards to "personal accountability", the best metaphor for free will is the one of "play the hand you were dealt" where free will is a mediation between two extremes of complete freedom to do anything you desire versuses the inability to commit to any desire.

In these respects freewill is a medial point between extremes and to argue a complete freedom to commit to any desire is in itself contradictory as the will is no longer "free" if it follows all desires.

gaffo
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:11 am

QuantumT wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:22 pm
To understand christianity, you must first understand judaism, wich is largly inspired by the ancient faiths of the summerians and the greeks. Sin however, was a jewish invention. It was invented as an explanation for lifes cruelty and the lack of contact with the devine (not that the devine was ever there).

Basicly life sucks because we upset God, and she/he can't get over it (sounds familiar?).
The jews had only one option to smooth things out, sacrifice an animal (back then animals were valuable goods, like our money today).
Btw judaism has no Hell as we understand it.
Sheol..............same as the Helenized Jews' Hades.

QuantumT wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:22 pm
Enter Jesus. He said we should treat eachother nicer, be pacifists, and not worry about all the rules so much. Nice guy! But he made trouble, and the romans killed him. His fans didn't like that, so they invented alot of stories about him. They made him the prince of the universe. Crazy stuff.
yep. romans first and formost, the Saduchees (Temple Jews) are in agreement to kill the rabble rouser...................and our Gospels rewrote the main killers as the Temple Jews and not the Romans at all.

you can see the evolution of blame from earlies tto latest - from Romans (sort of - to not at all) - from Mark to John.

QuantumT wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:22 pm
Enter Paul. He was an orthodox jew. He took it upon himself to organize all these stories and dogmas about Jesus. And he did, didn't he!?
yes, but not solely. others did the same.

author of "Q" (now lost).

author of Mark, Luke, Matt and John did the same.


as did he author to Thomas.

-----and another 20 or so works (many outside of the Orthodox bible).


QuantumT wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:22 pm
He practicly invented Hell and Satan. He made sure everybody knew they were sinners. He made the path to Heaven long and winding. He turned christianity into an ordeal.
um, no, the concept of Sheol/Hades, Heaven/etc predates Saul's works.

only thing Saul created was the concept of Christ - a being (literally YHWH's Son - no Trinity in his works at all BTW - created AFTER the death of Jesus!

unlike the Synoptics, which values the life and acts of of Jesus prior to his death - Saul never cared for that man, in fact i don't think he even though the man Jesus was much at all no devine - i think he only ONLY cared about the deing that was RESURRECTED after that man died!

this is how he differs from the synopics.


Most christians are unable to read each work to see how the differ and so force a "sola cripture" upon a work that is not unified in any theological way.

maybe only atheists are able to see such things with a clear eye.

QuantumT wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:22 pm
So, in my opinion Paul is the culprit. He turned a hippies messages into a thick soup of guilt and shame. Shame on Paul.
I don't like Saul either - not for his theology (which i have little regard for BTW) - but for the feeling i get when i read his works - a slimy opportunist/phoney.

for the clearest vision of the man Jesus (which we have surviving today - sadly "q" is lost) - is Mark.

I like Gosp of Mark, it shows Jesus' humanity.(he does not understand why he has to die, wishes to live (unlike John where Jesus knows all and more Robot than man).....................who was born the usual way and adopted by YHWH as his Son upon his baptism by John the Baptist on the river jordan.......................according to that work of course.

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Skip » Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:50 pm

Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
Christianity's Immoral Foundation

In the US, no one would seriously consider a law that called for the punishment of a child for the acts committed by the child's parents, especially if the acts occurred before the child was born.
Really? Then how come children born of mixed-race parents, unmarried teenaged girls, Hispanics, gay couples, Muslims, prison inmates, people with German names, migrant workers, mental patients and dwellers in trailer parks get such shabby treatment?
Fact is, Americans are all the time discriminating against children because of their parentage, whether the parents did anything wrong or not, whether it's legal or not, and they've made plenty of laws from time to time, regarding all of the above.
Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines. Somehow, an Adam and an Eve screwed up, and people born thousands of years later must pay the price for their mistake.
That's not a blood-line; that's the entire species. And it wasn't a mistake; it was a choice.* The actual punishment was directed personally at Adam : "You have to work for a living." and Eve: "You have to give birth."
The expulsion from Eden wasn't to punish them or any children they might have; it was to bar them from the Tree of Eternal Life, lest they get uppity and want become gods.
(*- blind faith [innocent dependency] vs. calculated risk [aware autonomy]. IOW, the knowledge of good and evil actually dawned, at least on Eve, before she took the first bite of that fruit. She was aware enough to desire knowledge and weigh the consequences.
Another way to look this event is as a rite of passage; leaving the nest; becoming responsible for their own decisions, acts and welfare.)

Throughout the OT, direct punishment it meted to men or the whole nation of Israel for disobedience. For routine sins, they just have to kill sheep or oxen. (This is the livelihood of the priestly caste, so it's got to keep coming regularly.)There is a mention of the sins following on to the seventh generation, but no specific threat to the children. It could be interpreted as consequences: if God punishes a patriarch by taking his fortune, or a king by letting the country be invaded, the next several generations are naturally going to suffer - collateral damage. On the other hand, children are generally regarded as possessions, so killing them, along with servants and cattle, is a punishment on the father. Jehovah wasn't interested in women and kids, and was downright hostile to foreigners. He punished them en masse for opposing Israel, regardless of any other sins they might have committed or good deeds they might have done.

That whole original sin nonsense came along later, when Christianity was conquering the world and their God had been promoted to rule over all the nations. The real horror of christianity is not the hereditary universal sinfulness (which is necessary for its own political reason), but the fundamental concept of sacrifice, of getting rid of your sin by killing someone else.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:14 pm

Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:50 pm
Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
Christianity's Immoral Foundation

In the US, no one would seriously consider a law that called for the punishment of a child for the acts committed by the child's parents, especially if the acts occurred before the child was born.
Really? Then how come children born of mixed-race parents, unmarried teenaged girls, Hispanics, gay couples, Muslims, prison inmates, people with German names, migrant workers, mental patients and dwellers in trailer parks get such shabby treatment?
Fact is, Americans are all the time discriminating against children because of their parentage, whether the parents did anything wrong or not, whether it's legal or not, and they've made plenty of laws from time to time, regarding all of the above.
Hoo, boy, Skip!! You really know how to mix up concepts, and make no effort to separate finer meanings, which are not even fine, but robust, easily discernible differences in meanings.

You are really not thinking properly. Either you are lazy, or you are incapable.

Law does not equal social customs.

Shabby treatment is not prescribed by law.

Read please again what Doctordien claimed: NO LAW, and to PUNISH ILLEGAL DEEDS.

You, Skip, fail on both accounts because you are not thinking clearly. Discrimination is not because the crime of the parent in the cases you cited.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:23 pm

Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:50 pm
Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines. Somehow, an Adam and an Eve screwed up, and people born thousands of years later must pay the price for their mistake.
That's not a blood-line; that's the entire species.
An entire species IS a blood line. All people are descendant of Adam and Eve, according to Christian faith. What is that if not a blood line? Can you point out other forefathers to any human being that does not directly lead to Adam and Eve, according to Christian dogma? NO you can't. So it IS a bloody blood line.
Skip wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:50 pm
And it wasn't a mistake; it was a choice.*
Oh, and can you name a mistake a person makes which is not a part or a consequence of a decision? You can't. It WAS a mistake, to decide to eat the apple. You are incredibly inept at discerning concepts, that are just a tad bit out of the literal. A mistake can't be made without making a choice. Yes, Adam and Eve made a mistake, and we are paying for it, according to Christian myth, exactly what Doctordien said.

So far you have got zero for three of your critical remarks.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:31 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:15 am
Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines.
You may want to read this: Above Genetics: How your behaviour can affect your DNA

And:

Direct comparisons of identical twins constitute an optimal model for interrogating environmental epigenetics. In the case of humans with different environmental exposures, monozygotic (identical) twins were epigenetically indistinguishable during their early years, while older twins had remarkable differences in the overall content and genomic distribution of 5-methylcytosine DNA and histone acetylation.[8] The twin pairs who had spent less of their lifetime together and/or had greater differences in their medical histories were those who showed the largest differences in their levels of 5-methylcytosine DNA and acetylation of histones H3 and H4.[117] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Twins

So, yep, next question :D
Your entire thesis rests on sin potentiality, not actual sin.

Adam and Eve ate the apple. That was the original sin. If you call it apple, or fruit of the forbidden tree.

Who else ate apples after Adam and Eve? Who else ate the fruit of the forbidden tree? Nobody.

So the sin might be genetically programmed, but it never again was actually committed.

This is worse than what Christianity says: you are condemning people on the grounds of Christianity because they have the genetic potential to commit the original sin.

This is not good, Serendipper. You are inadvertently and viciously supporting the argument of the Original Poster in logical terms, while you decry his or her argument in emotional terms.

In effect you are now saying that people go to hell not because they sin, but because they have the potential to sin.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:33 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:17 am
Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
An individual can only control his or her own actions, and can only be responsible for his or her own actions.
Yeah. Charlie Manson and Hitler didn't personally kill anyone.

Give them both a f**king pass with some b/s for justification.
Plato and Socrates never killed anyone, either, so did not Aristotle. Yet they went to hell, according to Christian dogma, because they haven't been baptized, and only Christians get to go to heaven.

All women and children who died before Baptism went to hell, according to Christian mysticism, no matter how good, sinless lives they lived.

Your argument is absolutely immaterial and inconsequential, Walker, beside being ineffective.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by -1- » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:39 pm

A reminder to Serendipper, Skip and Walker: This is a philosophy site, not a Christian theological website.

Here, arguments based on logic win. Your faith may be important to you, but strength of faith is not a currency here; only logic is.

Please remember that.

Skip
Posts: 2553
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Skip » Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm

[gratuitous insults deleted]....
Law does not equal social customs.
Shabby treatment is not prescribed by law.
[S - Americans are all the time discriminating against children because of their parentage, whether the parents did anything wrong or not, whether it's legal or not, and they've made plenty of laws from time to time, regarding all of the above. ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive ... Order_9066
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 07.00315.x
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics ... index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_ ... dy_defined
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -separated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... s_by_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:23 pm
[That's not a blood-line; that's the entire species.]
An entire species IS a blood line. All people are descendant of Adam and Eve, according to Christian faith.
Were descended, up to the bifurcations where some lines became Jews, while others became Canaanites, Moabites, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc. Those are thenceforward treated as distinct bloodlines - and that's how the notion of bloodlines began. Jehovah didn't concern himself with those other peoples, except as they interacted with His own chosen people.
That distinction is still very much in evidence, not only in various laws and ideologies, but also within any single nation, where the racial divides are further subdivided into castes and family pedigrees. If it unified the human race, there would be no need for the concept at all.

[ And it wasn't a mistake; it was a choice.*]
Oh, and can you name a mistake a person makes which is not a part or a consequence of a decision? You can't.
"Part or consequence" is sidestepping the central issue of free will, upon which the story is predicated.
Most accidents are caused by unpremeditated, unintended acts. Most examination failures are caused by the forgetting or absence of information, rather than the test-taker's decision to leave off the paper. Most lost trials hang on the absence of proof, or vindicating evidence, rather than the attorney choosing to withhold it.
This was a contemplated, deliberate decision. She knew there would be consequences. The serpent, who had known God for a long time, assured her: "He will not kill you." She believed him. The serpent was correct. A&E got out of the gilded cage.
It WAS a mistake, to decide to eat the apple. ...[gratuitous insult deleted]... A mistake can't be made without making a choice.
Sometimes the mistake is acting on incorrect information; sometimes the mistake is doing nothing; sometimes the mistake is overestimating one's capability. Taking a calculated risk on sound intelligence is not a mistake. The outcome can be a disaster or a triumph.
If you classify as mistakes all actions that don't result in the best possible outcome in retrospect, you'll have to pardon all crime.
Yes, Adam and Eve made a mistake, and we are paying for it, according to Christian myth,
Post-Roman Christian dogma. Not the original myth.
This is a philosophy site, not a Christian theological website.
Mythology and religion owe no debt to logic. The text is available for all to read. If the subject were forbidden here, the thread would have been closed immediately upon its inception.
Here, arguments based on logic win.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
When is the trophy to be presented?

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Serendipper » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:24 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:31 pm
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:15 am
Doctordien wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:39 am
Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines.
You may want to read this: Above Genetics: How your behaviour can affect your DNA

And:

Direct comparisons of identical twins constitute an optimal model for interrogating environmental epigenetics. In the case of humans with different environmental exposures, monozygotic (identical) twins were epigenetically indistinguishable during their early years, while older twins had remarkable differences in the overall content and genomic distribution of 5-methylcytosine DNA and histone acetylation.[8] The twin pairs who had spent less of their lifetime together and/or had greater differences in their medical histories were those who showed the largest differences in their levels of 5-methylcytosine DNA and acetylation of histones H3 and H4.[117] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Twins

So, yep, next question :D
Your entire thesis rests on sin potentiality, not actual sin.

Adam and Eve ate the apple. That was the original sin. If you call it apple, or fruit of the forbidden tree.

Who else ate apples after Adam and Eve? Who else ate the fruit of the forbidden tree? Nobody.

So the sin might be genetically programmed, but it never again was actually committed.

This is worse than what Christianity says: you are condemning people on the grounds of Christianity because they have the genetic potential to commit the original sin.

This is not good, Serendipper. You are inadvertently and viciously supporting the argument of the Original Poster in logical terms, while you decry his or her argument in emotional terms.

In effect you are now saying that people go to hell not because they sin, but because they have the potential to sin.
I don't see a difference. Potentiality = eventuality.

Does God have potential to sin? Why not? Does he have freewill? If so, why can't he sin? Did Jesus have potential to sin?

If God and Jesus have potential/capability to sin, but do not, then what is the difference between man and God? Well, in lieu of a better explanation, I'm assuming they do not have potential/capability and so if man inherited potentiality from Adam and Eve, then potentiality must = eventuality.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Christianity's Immoral Foundation

Post by Serendipper » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:31 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:39 pm
A reminder to Serendipper, Skip and Walker: This is a philosophy site, not a Christian theological website.

Here, arguments based on logic win. Your faith may be important to you, but strength of faith is not a currency here; only logic is.

Please remember that.
Your girlfriend may see your bossiness as cute, but we don't know you that well yet ;)

Anyway, have you ever seen anyone change their mind? Everyone here is practicing religious faith in whatever dogma they currently fancy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests