Philosophy Now Forum

Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

One of the lies for profit by the Churches seems to be the invention of hell to instill fear and loosen the purse strings and increase the indulgences people pay to save their souls, which were never condemned in the first place.

Another example of this for profit lying by Christianity would be Original Sin. This was something unknown to the Jews who have a different interpretation of their myths. To them, Eden was where we were elevated, not where we fell.

Is creating false guilt for profit a good moral tenet and should a religion that does so be followed?

Or would God forbid such a sin and curse those religions to hell?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

One of the lies for profit by the Churches seems to be the invention of hell to instill fear and loosen the purse strings and increase the indulgences people pay to save their souls, which were never condemned in the first place.

Another example of this for profit lying by Christianity would be Original Sin. This was something unknown to the Jews who have a different interpretation of their myths. To them, Eden was where we were elevated, not where we fell.

Is creating false guilt for profit a good moral tenet and should a religion that does so be followed?

Or would God forbid such a sin and curse those religions to hell?

Regards
DL

The Universalist believes that all will go to Heaven, and if Hell exists, it is only temporary.

It happens that I am a Universalist and Gnostic Christian. We do not have a need for a temporary punishment of souls.
The way we see heaven is more like a cosmic consciousness. Any and all thinking adjustments would happen upon entering heaven, Think of it as entering through a computer firewall that educates and thus adjusts thinking as the individual consciousness goes through. That condition is the only temporary condition that we have after the death of our bodies.

We cannot prove this as of yet but I am hopeful that science will find that cosmic consciousness soon.
They may have already.

https://vimeo.com/26318064

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:It happens that I am a Universalist and Gnostic Christian. We do not have a need for a temporary punishment of souls.
The way we see heaven is more like a cosmic consciousness. Any and all thinking adjustments would happen upon entering heaven, Think of it as entering through a computer firewall that educates and thus adjusts thinking as the individual consciousness goes through. That condition is the only temporary condition that we have after the death of our bodies.

We cannot prove this as of yet but I am hopeful that science will find that cosmic consciousness soon.
They may have already.

https://vimeo.com/26318064

Regards
DL

My pastor has stated that she is a Universalist, and I am undecided on the issue along with the idea that much of what some say will happen after death is speculation. I have decided not to worry too much about it and go on faith that God has my best interests in God's control, and there is little I can do to change it other than to do the best I can according to what I believe. Elsewhere I have stated that I do not agree with those who claim to "know" things about Heaven and the afterlife, when there is no real way to know anything about it. It's all belief based on faith, and I have decided that is enough, so I don't sweat the details.

^^

You have a reasonably opened mind so why do you choose a God whose morals are demonstrably satanic?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:You have a reasonably opened mind so why do you choose a God whose morals are demonstrably satanic?

If they are demonstrably so, you can then demonstrate this, right? In an effort to tease this out (but hopefully without going in apparent circles like we did on the last debate) do you want to nominate one particular moral and we can see if you can demonstrate it to be Satanic, or whether I can introduce enough of a counter-argument to get you to at least back off the claim that is it demonstrably so?

i.e. There's a world of difference between saying "I believe that God's morals are Satanic" and "I can demonstrate such."

How do Churches make profit by creating false guilt?

...and is there a such thing as "real guilt"?

Do religions ever create that, too?

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:You have a reasonably opened mind so why do you choose a God whose morals are demonstrably satanic?

If they are demonstrably so, you can then demonstrate this, right? In an effort to tease this out (but hopefully without going in apparent circles like we did on the last debate) do you want to nominate one particular moral and we can see if you can demonstrate it to be Satanic, or whether I can introduce enough of a counter-argument to get you to at least back off the claim that is it demonstrably so?

i.e. There's a world of difference between saying "I believe that God's morals are Satanic" and "I can demonstrate such."

So many choices.

Let me pick an easy one.
Is it moral for a God or a man to torture a man's baby for 6 days, and then kill it, all because of anger at the man?

Regards
DL

David Handeye wrote:How do Churches make profit by creating false guilt?

Do you recall what split the Lutherans from the Catholics?

Indulgences. Right?

Those are payments to the church to absolve the sinner from what the church has told him is a sin.

In that day, even making love to your naked wife was said to be a sin by the church.

The false guilt of sexual misconduct let to a payment to the church and that is how and why the church is culpable for fraud and making profit from creating a false guilt.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Is it moral for a God or a man to torture a man's baby for 6 days, and then kill it, all because of anger at the man?

To what are you referring? Maybe I'm just slow(er) today, but I'm not matching up a Biblical narrative to that particular case.

Immanuel Can wrote:...and is there a such thing as "real guilt"?

Do religions ever create that, too?

Sure. Any guilt will do, be it real or not.

We should all feel guilty for doing something some other will see as his being hurt or victimised by some action.

But payment or repentance belongs to that victim and not some priest or God.

Christianity has cut man out of the forgiveness racket and thus we never get closure to each other anymore. You might wonder if perhaps that is why we have been at war with each other thanks to the Abrahamic cults for the last 2,000 years.

We never face our victims anymore and thus they, nor the perpetrators, ever get full closure or real forgiveness.

Regards
DL

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Is it moral for a God or a man to torture a man's baby for 6 days, and then kill it, all because of anger at the man?

To what are you referring? Maybe I'm just slow(er) today, but I'm not matching up a Biblical narrative to that particular case.

You do not need to to make a moral judgement do you?

But look up the story of King David and see that scenario played out. The same conditions of torture and killing would apply at the great flood and also the first born of Egypt.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

David Handeye wrote:How do Churches make profit by creating false guilt?

Do you recall what split the Lutherans from the Catholics?

Indulgences. Right?

Those are payments to the church to absolve the sinner from what the church has told him is a sin.

In that day, even making love to your naked wife was said to be a sin by the church.

The false guilt of sexual misconduct let to a payment to the church and that is how and why the church is culpable for fraud and making profit from creating a false guilt.

Regards
DL

indulgences?? a bello, you're talking of Middle Ages, just wake up. ma cose e pazz

David Handeye wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

David Handeye wrote:How do Churches make profit by creating false guilt?

Do you recall what split the Lutherans from the Catholics?

Indulgences. Right?

Those are payments to the church to absolve the sinner from what the church has told him is a sin.

In that day, even making love to your naked wife was said to be a sin by the church.

The false guilt of sexual misconduct let to a payment to the church and that is how and why the church is culpable for fraud and making profit from creating a false guilt.

Regards
DL

indulgences?? a bello, you're talking of Middle Ages, just wake up. ma cose e pazz

I guess that connecting dot's is not your forte.

What are people paying for when they put money into the basket if not the forgiveness of their sins?

Note that that is exactly what an indulgence is. Tithes is another word but usually defined slightly differently.

It does the same. It is all money trying to buy God's favor.

Regards
DL