Christianity's Immoral Foundation

[Wootah]

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."

Evidence or no.

[Mike Strand]

ForgedinHell, you’ve deftly pointed out an inconsistency in Christianity based on many Christians’ assumptions and ideas about sin and also the assumption that God’s morality agrees in large part with human ideas of morality. There are many such inconsistencies – another one being Jesus’ teaching in the book of Matthew to pray only in private, and yet most churches practice public prayer.

The doctrine of original sin, or “all of us are sinners, and only Jesus can save us” is claimed by many to be a concept invented by human beings who set up a religion to try to control people – to keep them humble and believing that they need others (priests, Jesus, etc.) to “save” them (whatever that means).

If a superior being we might call “God” exists, that being doesn’t necessarily have to adhere to human ideas of morality, even widely accepted ones – e.g. that children can’t be punished for the “sins” of their fathers. Many read the Bible and see in its depiction of God a powerful Dictator. I’m not saying that such a God exists, or that anything that may be seen as a God exists. But assuming some sort of God exists, then anything’s possible.

[ForgedinHell]

ForgedinHell, you’ve deftly pointed out an inconsistency in Christianity based on many Christians’ assumptions and ideas about sin and also the assumption that God’s morality agrees in large part with human ideas of morality. There are many such inconsistencies – another one being Jesus’ teaching in the book of Matthew to pray only in private, and yet most churches practice public prayer.

The doctrine of original sin, or “all of us are sinners, and only Jesus can save us” is claimed by many to be a concept invented by human beings who set up a religion to try to control people – to keep them humble and believing that they need others (priests, Jesus, etc.) to “save” them (whatever that means).

If a superior being we might call “God” exists, that being doesn’t necessarily have to adhere to human ideas of morality, even widely accepted ones – e.g. that children can’t be punished for the “sins” of their fathers. Many read the Bible and see in its depiction of God a powerful Dictator. I’m not saying that such a God exists, or that anything that may be seen as a God exists. But assuming some sort of God exists, then anything’s possible.

The god would still be immoral, even if the god of the Bible existed, and everything in the Bible were 100% true. I wouldn't care if God made an excuse for its behavior and claimed it was moral, God would be insane to even make the argument.

[Mike Strand]

I agree a god who would punish children for the sins of their parents would be violating my sense of correct behavior (morality). Assuming such a god has the other attributes that we humans often assign to God -- creator of everything, with unlimited power and knowledge - then suffering punishment becomes a possibility, even for people whom I might think are blameless.

It boils down to my specification of what God must be like, assuming God exists. My point is that once the assumption of God existing is made, there is nothing to force God to be "nice". Personally, I specify that for a Being to be God, that Being must be "nice". So if it turns out that God exists and is immoral, then I would go into denial and say that that Being is not God (or not at least not my "God"). A trite way of saying this is that if God exists, God is God, and not necessarily what I think God should be.

[ForgedinHell]

I agree a god who would punish children for the sins of their parents would be violating my sense of correct behavior (morality). Assuming such a god has the other attributes that we humans often assign to God -- creator of everything, with unlimited power and knowledge - then suffering punishment becomes a possibility, even for people whom I might think are blameless.

It boils down to my specification of what God must be like, assuming God exists. My point is that once the assumption of God existing is made, there is nothing to force God to be "nice". Personally, I specify that for a Being to be God, that Being must be "nice". So if it turns out that God exists and is immoral, then I would go into denial and say that that Being is not God (or not at least not my "God"). A trite way of saying this is that if God exists, God is God, and not necessarily what I think God should be.

But, you can look around you, see all the injustice in the world, and know that a moral god does not exist.

[Mike Strand]

I basically agree with you, ForgedinHell, with a proviso: I do not believe that a God that follows my sense of morality and is also active in the affairs of our planet exists. That doesn't close the door, however. Some folks may think God is on vacation (the Deists, perhaps), and will come back and save us all.

It could be that "God" is the human sense of what "goodness" should be. If "goodness" is "treating ourselves and others with kindness and respect", and if most of us could follow that and successfully restrain those who don't, "God" may at least save us from self-destruction. That still leaves open destruction by a natural calamity, such as a large asteroid hitting the earth.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is metaphorical universal salvation for every human being: Like the fate of the neighbor's dead cat, eternal rest and peace with the grave. Life may not be "fair" (in line with our highest moral sense), but this view of death would mean we're all headed for the same fate, and thus, in a way, all equally "fortunate". This is preferable to some people going to eternal hell, in my view. (After all, I or my loved ones may be some of those people, and in this case I would prefer eternal oblivion for myself and them).

People seem to get into big conflicts when they start claiming there is a heaven and hell after biological death, and when some people claim their belief system will get them to heaven, and mine will put me in hell. This is bunk, in my opinion. Most human beings experience both joy and woe, both pleasure and pain in this life, whatever their beliefs or behavior. And if there is "life" after biological death, who is to say what that life will be like?

[ForgedinHell]

I basically agree with you, ForgedinHell, with a proviso: I do not believe that a God that follows my sense of morality and is also active in the affairs of our planet exists. That doesn't close the door, however. Some folks may think God is on vacation (the Deists, perhaps), and will come back and save us all.

It could be that "God" is the human sense of what "goodness" should be. If "goodness" is "treating ourselves and others with kindness and respect", and if most of us could follow that and successfully restrain those who don't, "God" may at least save us from self-destruction. That still leaves open destruction by a natural calamity, such as a large asteroid hitting the earth.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is metaphorical universal salvation for every human being: Like the fate of the neighbor's dead cat, eternal rest and peace with the grave. Life may not be "fair" (in line with our highest moral sense), but this view of death would mean we're all headed for the same fate, and thus, in a way, all equally "fortunate". This is preferable to some people going to eternal hell, in my view. (After all, I or my loved ones may be some of those people, and in this case I would prefer eternal oblivion for myself and them).

Well, given the large number of child deaths that occur each year, I fail to see how any all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god exists. I know for a fact that when I merely mentioned people may have the right to decide not to give their money to people in need, I was called a number of names, ranging from a-hole to something along the line of being a fascist scumbag. But, many of those same people get down on bended knee and worship a god that gives no money, or help or cures to the poor children. Strange how in the one case the same people who demonized me had no problem loving a god that failed to lift a finger to help people in need, although the belief is that god could have. I think there is a cognitive-dissonance in people's conception of a moral god. Look arounfd you, no such god could exist.
People seem to get into big conflicts when they start claiming there is a heaven and hell after biological death, and when some people claim their belief system will get them to heaven, and mine will put me in hell. This is bunk, in my opinion. Most human beings experience both joy and woe, both pleasure and pain in this life, whatever their beliefs or behavior. And if there is "life" after biological death, who is to say what that life will be like?

[Mike Strand]

Thanks again, ForgedinHell.

Readers please note, the first section of the third paragraph under "Mike Strand wrote" in the previous post, beginning with, "Well, given the large number of child deaths..." is actually your (ForgedinHell's) reply to my post.

The problem of evil is a telling one, and makes many people doubt the existence of a human-loving God. It's puzzling to me that, when sad and pointless things happen, like the death of a child in a hurricane, some people still say things such as, "It's all for the best, God has a plan, God works in mysterious ways", and so on. This line is hard to swallow, especially when such a tragedy happens to you or a loved one.

However, tragedy and pain, as well as joy and pleasure, appear to happen to almost all of us, no matter what our beliefs or behavior. This seems consistent with the idea that we are kin with the other biological entities on this planet. I think that if we want a better existence in the here and now, we need to find out better ways to take care of ourselves and cooperate with others, and quit blaming or giving credit to or making excuses for a fictitious god, for what happens to us.

[ForgedinHell]

Thanks again, ForgedinHell.

Readers please note, the first section of the third paragraph under "Mike Strand wrote" in the previous post, beginning with, "Well, given the large number of child deaths..." is actually your (ForgedinHell's) reply to my post.

The problem of evil is a telling one, and makes many people doubt the existence of a human-loving God. It's puzzling to me that, when sad and pointless things happen, like the death of a child in a hurricane, some people still say things such as, "It's all for the best, God has a plan, God works in mysterious ways", and so on. This line is hard to swallow, especially when such a tragedy happens to you or a loved one.

However, tragedy and pain, as well as joy and pleasure, appear to happen to almost all of us, no matter what our beliefs or behavior. This seems consistent with the idea that we are kin with the other biological entities on this planet. I think that if we want a better existence in the here and now, we need to find out better ways to take care of ourselves and cooperate with others, and quit blaming or giving credit to or making excuses for a fictitious god, for what happens to us.

I agree! And you expressed that idea quite well.

[Satyr]

Even an imbecile finds relief in atheism these days.

[attofishpi]

Even an imbecile finds relief in atheism these days.

I agree! And you expressed that idea quite well.

[Jonathan.s]

It's puzzling to me that, when sad and pointless things happen, like the death of a child in a hurricane, some people still say things such as, "It's all for the best, God has a plan, God works in mysterious ways", and so on. This line is hard to swallow, especially when such a tragedy happens to you or a loved one.

This always strikes me as 'the hotel guest argument'. It is as if the world is the enormous serviced apartment, but, strangely, awful things happen, like accidents and epidemics. So, we feel entitled to ask 'who's in charge here! Who let this happen? I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MANAGER.'

My take is that the world simply must be a realm within which there are accidents, illnesses and disasters. After all, if you wanted to ameliorate them, then when would you stop? Say if you could prevent the needless death of 999 children, but the 1,000th child died needlessly, you would still have the same basic problem. The only way the problem could be totally solved would be if there were no suffering whatever.

But then, I suspect, if such a place existed, it would not be what we know as 'the world'.

Overall, I am reminded of the comment by (I think) C S Lewis: we're better off regarding the world as a school rather than a hotel.

[Wootah]

Mike or FiH - was there any evidence cited by you guys that Christianity suggests that we are all being punished for someone elses sins? It's just difficulty to justify responding to you and FiH because of this and because I hate to break up two people so happily agreeing with each other.

[ForgedinHell]

Mike or FiH - was there any evidence cited by you guys that Christianity suggests that we are all being punished for someone elses sins? It's just difficulty to justify responding to you and FiH because of this and because I hate to break up two people so happily agreeing with each other.

You seriously have never heard of original sin?

Read the 10 commandments. God specifically states he will punish future generations for the acts of children not honoring their parents.

Read the genesis story, where god makes all women suffer during childbirth as punishment for the acts of Eve.

[Mike Strand]

To jonathan: Thanks for your comments about my second paragraph, starting with "It's puzzling to me..". , and the note that we're better off, as C. S. Lewis suggested, to regard the world more as a school than as a hotel. If a superior being always protected us, we would learn nothing, I guess. But when tragedy is personal and you've been told there is a loving God, your emotional response may understandably be bitter or skeptical.

To Wootah (good to be exchanging ideas with you again) -- I meant to suggest that some folks believe we are being punished (or at least must prove ourselves) because of the sins of Adam and Eve. I don't personally believe that -- I repost my last paragraph of my previous post:

"However, tragedy and pain, as well as joy and pleasure, appear to happen to almost all of us, no matter what our beliefs or behavior. This seems consistent with the idea that we are kin with the other biological entities on this planet. I think that if we want a better existence in the here and now, we need to find out better ways to take care of ourselves and cooperate with others, and quit blaming or giving credit to or making excuses for a fictitious god, for what happens to us."

I would add that whether "God" exists or not, it seems to me a good idea for us human beings to take responsibility for ourselves: To take better care of ourselves and each other. As in, "God helps those who help themselves". Bad and good stuff will happen to you and to me -- how should we deal with that? Whether you believe in God or not, the second great commandment (aka the golden rule) appears to be applicable here.