Christianity's Immoral Foundation

[ForgedinHell]

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?

[Notvacka]

Starting yet another topic, are we? Picking something easier this time, since you failed to answer the most basic questions about your statements in Political Philosophy?

I don't think you'll find any takers on this topic here.

[ForgedinHell]

Starting yet another topic, are we? Picking something easier this time, since you failed to answer the most basic questions about your statements in Political Philosophy?

I don't think you'll find any takers on this topic here.

I've answered every question you asked of me; however, you failed to answer even a single one of mine. You are actually on the stupid side, and quite boring. I pick this topic because I freely decided to. You think you own me and can dictate to me what I do? Fat chance of that.

I'll note again for the record that you had no refutation, but simply engage in childishness.

[John]

My challenge for Christians is to explain how it is moral to hold people responsible for acts that occurred before they were even born.

It's not moral. So accepting that, could you explain why it's moral to provide the children of poor parents with the worst education, health provision, housing etc.? To use your language, why should they pay the price of their parent's mistakes?

[ForgedinHell]

My challenge for Christians is to explain how it is moral to hold people responsible for acts that occurred before they were even born.

It's not moral. So accepting that, could you explain why it's moral to provide the children of poor parents with the worst education, health provision, housing etc.? To use your language, why should they pay the price of their parent's mistakes?

Going off on another tangent, are we? What does your question have to do with the topic? Nothing.

As far as children are concerned, I would help a starving child, and have. But, that is me voluntarily doing it. It is moral for a person to freely help a child in need; however, it is immoral for someone to use force against another using the excuse that a child is in need. One may use words and arguments and pictures that touch the heart to get someone to assist a child in need, but it would be immoral to steal from someone, to use force against them, to assist the child.

[John]

My challenge for Christians is to explain how it is moral to hold people responsible for acts that occurred before they were even born.

It's not moral. So accepting that, could you explain why it's moral to provide the children of poor parents with the worst education, health provision, housing etc.? To use your language, why should they pay the price of their parent's mistakes?

Going off on another tangent, are we? What does your question have to do with the topic? Nothing.

Your inability to see the connections is your problem not mine.

But many people hold inconsistent beliefs so you're not alone.

[ForgedinHell]

[

Your inability to see the connections is your problem not mine.

But many people hold inconsistent beliefs so you're not alone.

There is nothing inconsistent in my view. My view consistently supports individual freedom, whereas yours seems not to.

[Wootah]

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?

You will be judged on your actions and not for Adam and Eves or even mine. Where is it implied that we are judged by Adam and Eves actions? You could say that a Christian is a person that asks to be judged by Jesus's actions.

[Notvacka]

My view consistently supports individual freedom...

Your view is from a particular viewpoint, but you haven't properly defined where you stand. You have a stance, but from my viewpoint, you have nothing to stand upon.

If you want to convince others, which seems to be what you are trying to do, then you must actually engage in a discussion. To make us see things your way, you must show us where you stand, so that we can try to see things from your perspective. Likewise, when others suggest different viewpoints, you should try to see things from their perspective. Shouting about how much better your viewpoint is compared to some other point of view does no good, unless you can provide a path from one point to the other. Some people might happily jump to conclusions, but philosophy is about connecting the dots.

If somebody asks you a reasonable question, you should ensure that you understand the question properly, and then at least try to answer it. I have asked you repeatedly to explain what self-ownership is, but you don't even try to provide an answer. Which implies that you have none. Or perhaps that you haven't yet understood my question.

(Forget about Christianity's immoral foundation. I see what you mean there. )

I'll try to be helpful and explain my question in detail: Ownership is generally understood as a relationship between two separate entities. This relationship functions as a bond; it binds entities together, so that one belongs to the other. And it's a particular sort of bond, because it also establishes a hierarchy, where one entity, the owner, controls the other entity, that which is owned. Are you with me so far? Good. Now, I claim that I am myself, just like you are yourself. Still with me? Great. Then, I can phrase my question like this:

What does the statement "I own myself" add that is not already included in the statement "I am myself"?

[Resha Caner]

You will be judged on your actions and not for Adam and Eves or even mine. Where is it implied that we are judged by Adam and Eves actions? You could say that a Christian is a person that asks to be judged by Jesus's actions.

You're correct. I especially like the last part of the above quote. But I suspect that what Forged refers to is verses like Exodus 20:5. At least that's what I assume. There seems to be a tendency in this forum to accuse Christians (the Bible, etc.) of certain things without referencing what that accusation applies to. It comes off as hearsay. Regardless, I'll give my answer to verses like the one in Exodus.

I think the problem comes from a misunderstanding of "original sin". Many Christians reject the idea of original sin because they think exactly what Forged is talking about - that it's unfair to punish someone for what they didn't do (which it is). In rejecting a doctrine of original sin, however, they instantiate exactly the problem they're trying to solve. If there is no original sin, then Exodus 20:5 means God punishes people for something they didn't do, and he is being unfair. So then people have to write off those verses with comments like, "Well, that's the OT, Christianity is about the NT," etc. But pull out one thread and the whole thing unravels. It doesn't work. One must take the canon of scripture as a whole - not pick and choose the parts that sound good.

So what does original sin mean? It's like someone, person A, who fills a pail with drinking water and sets it on the ground for others to drink from. Along comes person B and dumps in some dirt. The next person who gets thirsty (person C) is not guilty of fouling the water, but must still drink the dirty water. Person C is not capable of separating the water from the dirt, and is forever drinking dirty water. Finally person A offers to provide pure water by distilling the dirty water.

But how do people react? They get angry at person A for calling their drinking water dirty. Or they get angry at person A for allowing the water to get dirty in the first place since they know how to distill water. They claim person B isn't responsible for the dirty water, but it's person A's responsibility because they set the pail on the ground in the first place. They should have put it somewhere else. Or when person A points out that the water is dirty, Person C thinks he is being blamed for drinking dirty water - that it's his fault for drinking from a pail that A offered when he has no other choice. Why must he now drink distilled water? Why can't person A just provide a new pail of clean water? He had the power to do it the first time.

Water is good. Dirt is good. Even mixing them is good (for plants). It's just not good for people to drink it. So all these "good" things don't become "evil" until one person puts other people in a position of using those good things in a way they were not intended. And maybe Person B didn't even intend "evil" when they dumped in the dirt. Maybe they didn't hear Person A say it was for drinking, and they intended it for the plants. Or maybe they had only ever drank grape juice and had only ever seen people dumping dirt into the water, not realizing people didn't drink it that way. Who knows.

But once the mistake is discovered, it becomes a blame shifting game - the same as what has been happening since Adam and Eve. The line is always, "It's not my fault." So, once again, we're into a discussion of how free we are to act when compared to God's power: theodicy. The "problem of evil" is a tough one - not an easy discussion to have. But let's at least acknowledge that as the heart of the matter and avoid getting tangled up in secondary issues like the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine explains verses like Exodus 20:5 just fine.

I apologize as I'll be gone next week, so I can't engage in a lengthy conversation, but I didn't want to let this go by. If the thread is still churning when I get back, I'll try to catch up.

[ForgedinHell]

My view consistently supports individual freedom...

Your view is from a particular viewpoint, but you haven't properly defined where you stand. You have a stance, but from my viewpoint, you have nothing to stand upon.

If you want to convince others, which seems to be what you are trying to do, then you must actually engage in a discussion. To make us see things your way, you must show us where you stand, so that we can try to see things from your perspective. Likewise, when others suggest different viewpoints, you should try to see things from their perspective. Shouting about how much better your viewpoint is compared to some other point of view does no good, unless you can provide a path from one point to the other. Some people might happily jump to conclusions, but philosophy is about connecting the dots.

If somebody asks you a reasonable question, you should ensure that you understand the question properly, and then at least try to answer it. I have asked you repeatedly to explain what self-ownership is, but you don't even try to provide an answer. Which implies that you have none. Or perhaps that you haven't yet understood my question.

(Forget about Christianity's immoral foundation. I see what you mean there. )

Trust me, you've never asked a "reasonable" question.

I'll try to be helpful and explain my question in detail: Ownership is generally understood as a relationship between two separate entities. This relationship functions as a bond; it binds entities together, so that one belongs to the other. And it's a particular sort of bond, because it also establishes a hierarchy, where one entity, the owner, controls the other entity, that which is owned. Are you with me so far? Good. Now, I claim that I am myself, just like you are yourself. Still with me? Great. Then, I can phrase my question like this:

What does the statement "I own myself" add that is not already included in the statement "I am myself"?

[Notvacka]

Trust me, you've never asked a "reasonable" question.

This is the kind of non-answer I keep getting from you.

Again, I'll try to be helpful and explain my question in detail: Ownership is generally understood as a relationship between two separate entities. This relationship functions as a bond; it binds entities together, so that one belongs to the other. And it's a particular sort of bond, because it also establishes a hierarchy, where one entity, the owner, controls the other entity, that which is owned. Are you with me so far? Good. Now, I claim that I am myself, just like you are yourself. Still with me? Great. Then, I can phrase my question like this:

What does the statement "I own myself" add that is not already included in the statement "I am myself"?

If you find this question unreasonable, I would say that your capacity for reason is severely impaired.

[John]

There is nothing inconsistent in my view.

You think it's immoral to punish children for the actions of their parents but children are routinely punished socially and economically for the actions of their parents so I propose that there is an inconsistency here unless you also support support some attempt to level the playing ground.

[ForgedinHell]

There is nothing inconsistent in my view.

You think it's immoral to punish children for the actions of their parents but children are routinely punished socially and economically for the actions of their parents so I propose that there is an inconsistency here unless you also support support some attempt to level the playing ground.

Christians believe that sin travels through blood lines, and hence, why their alleged god needed to die for our "sins." I believe in no such thing. How are children punished for the actions of their parents? Because some parents are poor? If you don't like them being poor, then you can sell your computer, house, whatever you own, and give your money away to help them. Have I ever stated that you are not free to sell everything you own to help them? Have I tried to stop you from helping them? No. So, how am I insisting that children be punished for the acts of their parents? That would only be the case if I thought poor children should remain poor, always, no matter what they try to do in life. That is not my position.

[John]

Christians believe that sin travels through blood lines, and hence, why their alleged god needed to die for our "sins." I believe in no such thing. How are children punished for the actions of their parents? Because some parents are poor? If you don't like them being poor, then you can sell your computer, house, whatever you own, and give your money away to help them. Have I ever stated that you are not free to sell everything you own to help them? Have I tried to stop you from helping them? No.

How many could I help? One, two a few more? whatever it is wont change the fact that the children of poor parents are punished by society.

So, how am I insisting that children be punished for the acts of their parents? That would only be the case if I thought poor children should remain poor, always, no matter what they try to do in life. That is not my position.

Christianity offers redemption as well so maybe your positions are closer than you think.