Catholicism is by far the largest and most important of them.
Perhaps, but Catholic doctrine bears little resemblance to the Christianity taught in the New Testament, whether you're talking about doctrine or organization. I can provide examples if you wish.
And even if I'm wrong, that still doesn't change my point. You see, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in revelation - therefore, if the New Testament does not support violence, then Christianity does not support violence, regardless of whether some Pope decides to slaughter a neighboring country.
A very revealing statement: what primarily matters to you is that Paul supported Christians. The fact that he was a torturer and murderer before doesn't matter to you,
If someone has demonstrated that they have changed, then no, their past behavior is not my concern.
Your comments, too, are revealing: you appear to think people can't change. (And if you do, then I don't understand what your objection is, since I'm merely asserting that Paul changed, and you have offered no evidence to the contrary.)
and you don't really ask the question of whether he continued torturing and murdering for Christianity (as his designated successors clearly did).
You're touching a few issues here. First, you've offered no evidence that he continued torturing and murdering for Christianity (and in fact there is none).
Second, Paul was never the head of Christ's Church; that was Peter (especially according to the Catholic Church).
Third, there never was a designated succession. The Bishop in Rome after Peter's death merely decided "Hey, Peter used to hang out here, so I'm going to be the leader now!" Other bishops disagreed, and it was eventually settled by committee (if I have my history right).
They didn't choose a new set of apostles and prophets (and the Catholics still have not to this day, despite the scriptural statement that apostles and prophets are necessary until we all come to a unity of the faith, which we have not).
The supposed succession gets even murkier after that when the papacy (as it was eventually called) was sold at auction, reassigned by royal decree, relocated, split into two and then three papacies (each claiming to be the only legitimate one!), and so on and so forth.
I can quote Catholic historians on the matter, if you don't believe me. My point is, there was no designated succession, and that's the whole crux of the problem. (It's also part of the source of my comments about how Catholicism does not reflect the teachings of the New Testament.)
Christians commit immoral acts all the time, and then go to confession or repent privately.
Dont' be silly. I'm merely observing that logically, one cannot simultaneously accept Christ (which means obeying him) and do something immoral (which means disobeying Christ). They are mutually exclusive states.
The goal of every Christian is to spend more and more time in the "obey Christ" state than in the "disobey Christ" state. I'll agree that it seems virtually impossible, but even the Bible teaches becoming Christlike is a process, not a switch.
Christian doctrine is quite clear on many things, many of them mutually contradictory. People like you like to pull out whichever doctrine happens to fit the argument.
Apparently your church was more lax about contradictions than mine; feel free to point out scriptures you think contradict each other, and I will be glad to show you how they don't.
No, what is "morbid and obscene" is getting people to place more importance on the pleasure or suffering in an imaginary afterlife than on our current life
You only think it's morbid because you think the afterlife is imaginary; if you could prove with certainty that it existed as advertised, would you still consider these things morbid?
(And for what it's worth, I believe most Christian churches severely overplay the amount of suffering that will go on after death.)
Experiencing the consequences of weight loss doesn't require you to die, and those consequences are real, observable, and repeatable. That is not true of "paradise".
Ah, so we've discovered your true objection:
"If I can't see it, it must not be real."
But let me ask you a question. You keep saying that Christianity is immoral, and that its high regard for the afterlife is morbid, but you have ignored something important:
What does Christianity tell people to do that is harmful?
Let's assume a hypothetical religion that has just one commandment: do not steal. Followers of this religion are taught that if they obey this one commandment, they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
Would you say this religion is harmful to society? If so, how? If not, how then is it immoral?
Christianity is little more than a giant commandment to treat people as you yourself would like to be treated.
If I do that for my whole life - if I treat people with respect and dignity, as I would like to be treated myself - how have I harmed society? If I haven't, then how is the religion immoral?
"changing who you are" in Christianity does not mean that you stop doing bad things; it may just mean that you feel bad about it afterwards
Does it, now? Please show me where the Bible teaches that.
Also, explain why the Bible contradicts you when it says things like:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
These verses explicitly state that one cannot merely pay lip service - one must do the Father's will!
they are universal and predate Christianity by millennia.
... according to you. Not according to my religion:) (By which I mean, Adam and Eve were taught by God, where they obtained their moral code, which they passed to their children... which eventually made its way to us. Sure, it was corrupted once or twice by apostasy, but that's what prophets are for...)
I'm sure that you are generally a fairly well-behaved person, but that doesn't automatically make you moral.
So your answer is no, you can't provide an example of what it is about my religion that makes me immoral.
You see, you're avoiding the question - you began by stating that you consider Christianity to be "intrinsically immoral". You have not clarified, so I assumed that you mean it makes people do immoral things; when I asked what it is about my religion that makes me do immoral things, you dodged the question entirely.
But let's take your "killing" example, because it contradicts your claims:
You may not have killed because (1) you haven't had a need or opportunity to, (2) you are afraid of eternal damnation, or (3) you have an intrinsic aversion to killing.
So, being religious, this leaves me with three possibilities:
a) I'm going to kill regardless b) I have an intrinsic aversion to killing c) I avoid killing because I'm afraid of eternal damnation
If we erase religion from the picture entirely, that leaves only two choices:
a) I'm going to kill regardless b) I have an intrinsic aversion to killing
So you see, adding religion does nothing but reduce the chances that a given person will kill! How, exactly, is this a bad thing?
You are a moral person only if you do the right thing without coercion.
I agree that it is far better to obey out of an inherent desire to obey, rather than out of fear.
As a Christian, you do not have that choice, since reward and punishment in the afterlife is always hanging over your head.
That's ridiculous. It is not necessary to have no possibility of reward in order to choose to obey for the sake of obedience.
For example, it is true that if I refuse to help my wife out with the little things - taking out the trash, changing diapers, and so on - she will not be in the mood for intimacy. However, that does not mean sex must be the only motivation for doing these things for her; quite the contrary, I help her with these things merely because I want to help her.
My employer sometimes gives extra stock options as a reward for new ideas that increase profit. That does not mean I can't implement a new idea simply because it would be cool, without caring about the reward!
It's absurd to pretend that one cannot obey God for the sake of obedience, merely because God rewards obedience.
Deeds are insufficient for judging people.
And yet they're the only basis you have for judging anyone, since you can't know their thoughts. Thus either deed
In any case, there's violence even in the new testament. But I digress.
I'm interested in seeing where the New Testament encourages violence. Do tell.
Who are you to decide who's interpretation of the Bible is correct. These people simply are ignoring the teachings YOU claim to follow.
That's a reasonable point, but it's unfair of you to judge me by beliefs I don't share, so as long as you're willing to apply others' beliefs to me, I'm willing to pretend my beliefs are universal. Fair enough?
Nothing in the Bible says "And the dinosaur begateth many generations, some of which had minor mutations, and lo the chicken came into being". I suggest you take a good look at modern scientific theory before you make such claims.
When you're trying to give a large group of people the general idea of how a rather lengthy event occurred, you do not begin by giving a detailed account of three billion years of genetic evolution.
It's ridiculous to claim that in order for the Bible's account of the creation to be compatible with science it must describe in detail exactly what occurred and when, down to a description of genetic mutation.
To be more specific, the Bible's account of the creation is not meant to be a literal transcription of events; it's meant to be a conceptual grouping of events. The Bible's purpose in relating the creation is to tell us who did the creating, not how the creating was done.
Only every single war that used religion as a basis and every cult that sprang up based on an extreme view of a religion.
No no no no - I'm not letting you get away with that. You completely ignored my question. I didn't ask for examples of religion being a dangerous basis for morals; I asked for examples of how my religion is a dangerous basis for morals.
You yourself have pointed out that not all religions are alike; therefore it stands to reason that some religions are less dangerous than others as moral bases. But since you've categorically stated that all religions are a dangerous base for morals, then you must have at least one example specific to my religion.
So, I ask again - what belief in particular makes it dangerous for me to base my morals on my religion (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)?
And by the way, since you brought this up:
Only every single war that used religion as a basis and every cult that sprang up based on an extreme view of a religion.
I'd like to point out that six of the seven wars with the highest death tolls in history did not involve religion as a primary motivation for the war. See, for example, the list of wars and disasters by death toll on Wikipedia. (The one of seven that did involve religion as a primary motivator is fifth in the list.)
The Crusades, the dead horse everyone loves to beat, would be ranked at the bottom of that list. Not the bottom of the first seven - the bottom of the entire list of eighteen.
Statistically speaking, the largest wars in history were not based on religion.
So you tell me. Is it religion that causes violence, or do violent people merely use it sometimes to further their goals?
The essential premise of every religion is that you must have faith in things you can't prove, and are discouraged from testing.
No, not every religion; heck, even the Old Testament encourages its readers to test its promises on at least one occasion:
"10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to
So it's ok to hide your past in order to trick someone with your attitude into hiring you? I don't admire double standards and hypocracy, I think I'll hire the guy who's life is an open book.
... wow. Are you being deliberately thickheaded?
In order to expunge your record, you must first convince a judge - a trusted party - that you have changed. If you no longer have the disposition to steal, then it is proper for that past offense to be removed from your record; since you have changed, the bank would have no reason to deny your hire.
It's not hypocrisy to admit people can change, and it's certainly not a double-standard to support people when they do change.
I still think you'd be stupid to hire the guy with a juvenile record of theft to work at a bank, and I think it's even more moronic that you're defending it. In any case, we're wandering far from the original metaphor.
it's just that you don't have an unchanging and internally consistent set of beliefs, no human does.
I'm sorry you don't feel that you have an internally consistent set of beliefs. I believe people can certainly have consistent beliefs, and I'm quite certain I'm one of them. Feel free to challenge me on it with examples or hypotheticals, if you like.
Christianity teaches that it is necessary and sufficient to accept Christ.
... and yet again, you're conveniently ignoring what it means to "accept Christ". Merely saying the words is not sufficient; you must actually change who you are.
Many (most?) people see the law as utilitarian: as something that helps people stay out of each other's hair.
And yet our entire legal system was based on Christian morals... How convenient that you neglect to mention that.
(If you don't believe me, check out the laws against adultery in various states, as one example.)
But I agree - the law's job should be to keep people out of other people's hair. That doesn't change the fact that people with different morals have different boundaries - their hair, so to speak, varies in size.
But no amount of legislation will turn people like you into moral human beings
People like me. Wow. Can you please tell me a few things you think I've likely done (perhaps as a result of my religion) that you believe are immoral? (No, merely being Christian does not qualify.)
You would do well to judge people by their deeds, not by your own twisted interpretation of their beliefs.
In Christianity, if you suffer in this life, that's OK, as long as you have a good afterlife. Christian churches have used that to justify many transgressions against other human beings throughout history.
Christian doctrine is quite clear that causing others to suffer is a sin. Again: it is never OK to cause others to suffer. If there are Christians out there trying to use religion to justify causing others to suffer, then they're not living the religion they claim to follow.
I've been saying this all along - people doing violence in the name of Christianity are ignoring the religion they claim to follow.
Nothing you have said contradicts my point.
Christianity places great importance on this life only as a vehicle for attaining a desirable state in the afterlife. That is morbid and obscene.
By your logic, placing more importance on any goal than on the steps needed to reach it is morbid and obscene. You're being ridiculous.
Do you really think an obese person would be as successful at losing weight if you spent all day talking about how much exercise he needs to do and how much of his junk food he can't eat, instead of helping him focus on how he'll feel when he's through the hard part?
Focusing on a goal, rather than the difficult steps to get there, helps people achieve more. There's no reason this can't be as true of reaching the afterlife as it is of losing 150 pounds.
I didn't say "Show me a Catholic leader that advocated violence." I said "Show me where the New Testament advocates violence." There's a vast difference.
Or you can simply look at the story of Paul: here we have a man who persecuted and killed prior to his conversion to Christianity, but all of that was forgiven simply because he accepted Jesus.
There's nothing "simple" about accepting Jesus, and accepting Jesus involves far more than merely saying the words. If you believe Paul would be forgiven merely for paying lip service, then you're ignoring the scriptures which say otherwise, like this one in Matthew 7:
" 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Clearly, lip service is not enough; one must do the will of the Father. In order for Paul to be forgiven, he had to not merely stop harassing the local Christians, but he had to do that which God asked of him - that is, begin supporting the Christians.
But the church he founded then simply continued to commit the same acts of persecution and killing against non-Christians.
I guess you're going to make me come right out and say it: the Catholic Church bears little resemblance to the Church founded by the original Apostles, whether you look at doctrine or organization. I can give examples, if you'd like.
Any sufficiently large group of people contains people who commit violence, but that's not the issue.
But I'm saying it's precisely the issue - this whole thread began because someone proposed banning religion in an effort to curtail violence. I have shown that banning religion would not help toward that goal, precisely because any sufficiently large group of people contains people who commit violence, regardless of whether religion is involved.
with Christianity, acceptance of Christ is more important than moral behavior.
That sentence is self-contradictory. One cannot both accept Christ and engage in immoral behavior; when you do something immoral, you are rejecting Christ, by definition.
In reality, acceptance of Christ is dependent upon moral behavior.
I haven't argued that the Old Testament isn't part of Christianity. I've merely argued that the moral teachings of the Old Testament - where "an eye for an eye" is acceptable - were clearly replaced by "turn the other cheek" in the New Testament.
Any Christian who claims otherwise is deliberately ignoring the teachings of Him whom they claim to follow.
It's only with the itchy parts that they claim the new one has superseded it.
One could argue that that's no different than science. It's only with the itchy parts that you claim Relativity supersedes Newtonian physics; it's only where Relativity gets itchy that you claim Quantum Mechanics supersedes Relativity.
I'm not saying those things are wrong. I'm merely saying that no one book, no one theory, can tell the whole story.
My point is, just because someone came along and improved or refined something does not mean that thing is entirely invalid.
Christianity provides a perfectly logical, non-LEGO interpretation of the Old Testament. If you choose to ignore that interpretation, that's your choice, but judge my beliefs by my interpretation, not your illogical one.
I would not bet that there's such a line in the new testament, but the old is full of them. And yes, it is part of christianity. All the more benign quotes from it are commonly used. Pick and choose. Next crusade, the killing parts will be in favour again. Until then, pretend that they don't exist.
You're merely arguing that people misinterpret its teachings to suit their own existing desires; I've argued that myself. Yes, religion can make a convenient tool for people who wish to oppress others, but so can environmentalism, atheism, or anything else.
That does not change the fact that Christianity as taught by the New Testament does not condone violence.
the Catholic definition of being a saint is that they are gauranteed a place in heaven.
FTFY. The New Testament uses the term "saints" to mean merely "followers of Christ". See, for example, the salutation at the beginning of most of the epistles.
Killing abortion doctors might be a good cause for some christian sects and dying by way of the death penalty might be acceptable if they are rewarded in heaven.
... and yet any "Christian" sect that would support killing abortion doctors is quite blatantly ignoring Christ's teachings. That was my original point.
Just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't mean they are - it's especially obvious when they prove it by ignoring Christ's teachings. You shouldn't judge Christianity by the pretenders.
Stripping property from churches would accomplish nothing; individual members would merely buy the property themselves, and they'd continue functioning almost identically.
The only difference I can think of would be taxes, but that has its own problems.
Specifically, if you tax charitable donations to churches, you have to tax charitable donations to all other charitable organizations, because churches use those funds for various things including welfare and disaster assistance. See for example the LDS Church Humanitarian Efforts site.
Taxing those charitable donations reduces the amount of humanitarian aid given by those organizations, which basically shifts the burden to the government; since the same amount of aid is still needed, the government will have to spend that same income on humanitarian aid, minus the overhead of tax collection. The result is a net drop in humanitarian efforts.
Believe in an afterlive must certainly motivate suicide bombers
Not the Christian concept of the afterlife. Suicide bombers would, by Christian teachings, not go to heaven; so, quite the contrary, Christianity provides a disincentive for suicide bombing, despite believing in an afterlife.
the chistaina religion also has the concept of martyrdom
I think you're confused. The Bible doesn't say anything about martyrdom. Martyrdom is merely the concept that a person was killed for their beliefs and as a result became a symbol for his or her followers; it's not inherently religious, though that has been the most common case.
The problem with religion is that it provides a shortcut to the otherwise intelligent person's mind which bypasses their bullshit filter.
I agree, as it applies to religions which tell followers not to question their leaders.
I happen to belong to a religion which encourages members to decide for themselves what they believe. Arriving at my own conclusion after much study is, in no way, bypassing a "bullshit filter".
And, by the way, global warming is one of the things that I would say has taken advantage of the shortcut to the otherwise intelligent person's mind which bypasses their "bullshit filter" - and I would say that's true whether or not global warming is caused by humans, merely because so many people believe it for apparently no reason.
In other words, "I believe it because everyone else believes it" is not a valid basis for beliefs, and I think that applies to scientific-sounding conclusions as much as it applies to religion.
All the major religions have parts that say "kill the unbelievers" in them.
Please show me where the New Testament encourages followers to kill unbelievers. I won't hold my breath.
However, by the same rules that it passes to suppress violence, it creates more resentment. And resentment explodes in violence in a quite predictable manner.
I see. You're claiming that Christianity's teachings against violence are merely a front for a secret plot to suppress violent urges so much that they explode unwillingly.... yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Then decide whether that's a coincidence, related to a third common variable, or if there just might be something about it.
Correlation does not show causation; you know that. Not even if that correlation is statistically significant. (The famous example being the statistically significant correlation between ice cream sales and violent crime.)
Yes, religion can be and has been used as a tool for violence and oppression; so have environmentalism, atheism, and so on. Tools are neither good nor bad. Blame the people wielding the tool, not the tool itself.
No. They're just choosing which parts of their religious doctrines to follow. Most religions have both the equivalent of "do no harm" and "an eye for an eye".
Christianity does not have both - one replaced the other, quite explicitly.
People who choose "an eye for an eye" over "do no harm" are, as I said, ignoring the teachings of the religion they claim to follow.
(creation myth for a start)
That could mean any number of things; the story of the creation of the universe related by the Bible is entirely compatible with modern scientific theory.
Unless of course you insist on believing "day" is literal, despite the fact that the Hebrew didn't say "day"... in which case I'd agree with you.
People talk about religion being the basis of their morality but I can think of nothing more dangerous than basing your morality on fairy stories.
I'm interested in why you think it's dangerous for me to base my morals on my religion (I'm Mormon). Do you have examples? (Note that you can't use "I disagree with that moral conclusion" as a reason, because that's entirely arbitrary; you'd have to show how a particular moral belief would damage society, or even an individual, if it were widespread. I won't hold my breath.)
I'd say most religions thrive with exactly this behavior (it's one of religions strongest point to always be able to claim one thing and do another without anyone questioning it)!
Here you're confusing religion (the organization) with religion (the teachings). I won't disagree that many religious organizations are quite hypocritical.
Christ was quite outspoken against hypocrisy; people who claim to follow Christ's teachings would do well to remember that.
pretty much any holy book says it is ok to kill people who are not of same faith and that it is basically 'divine plan' for them to eventually suffer as much as possible.
... any holy book of which religion? Christians are discouraged from violence in the New Testament, and the Old Testament (covering Christians and Jews) only ever allows violence when specifically directed by a prophet of God. (Most Christians nowadays will tell you there are no more prophets, so by their own logic they can't be violent...)
A quick Google search shows that Hindu writings discourage violence, and that Muslim writings encourage non-violence.
[But] to get good people to do bad things, really bad things, you need religion.
Hitler didn't need religion to do his thing. Neither did Stalin, Hussein, or any of the other famous oppressive dictators we all know and love.
Would you claim that those men's actions are not "really bad"? Would you claim, despite the lack of evidence, that they were secretly religious, just to stay consistent?
Religion is certainly not relevant to whether people are willing to do really bad things.
You call it "affectations of religion", but really it's "affectations of a successful social movement". The fact that religions have many of the same characteristics does not make those characteristics inherently religious.
or they invent religion, or something close enough that the layman wouldn't know the difference, and invite along lots of other people to vent it on a large scale.
... like global warming?:)
(That was meant humorously. Please, nobody start a flame war about global warming/climate change/whatever, I'm not interested.)
Actually, sports have largely taken on that "venting violence" role in our society...
Why do you need a judge to expunge your record if you think a reasonable person would not hold your youthfull misdemeanours against you? Or are you saying that people who do hold such things against you are acting reasonably and thus you would act the same way?
If I ran a bank, and a new applicant had an unsealed juvenile record containing thefts, I don't think I'd hire that person. It's simple prudence. If the applicant can't be bothered to have his or her juvenile record expunged, then they can't be very serious about fixing up their life, can they?
If you would hire such a person, please tell me if you ever start a bank, so I can be sure not to do business there.
No I judge by deeds
The deeds of any person are based on that person's true beliefs. I wasn't trying to tell you to ignore the things people do, I was trying to tell you to judge people by their beliefs, not by your incomplete interpretation of their beliefs. Judging people by their deeds is one way of doing that.
christianity and judaism in their long lists of people you should put to death, like witches, homosexuals, etc.
I apparently missed this in several readings of the scriptures - where does the New Testament ever say "witches, homosexuals, etc" should be put to death?
And no, Jesus never said that the old testament is wrong and should be abandoned. And you know that.
The New Testament teaches quite clearly that the gospel taught by Jesus was the fulfillment of the law of Moses - it was a higher law, specifically meant to replace it. (Read the Epistle to the Hebrews before you disagree with me.)
No, Jesus never said the Old Testament was wrong. I didn't say he said it was wrong. I merely said he replaced it.
The principles taught by the Ten Commandments (for example) in the Old Testament are sound - Christ also taught them - but rather than focus on external change (controlling your actions), Christ focused on internal change (controlling your thoughts).
Thus Christ said (Matthew 5:27-28):
"27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Note the change in emphasis from controlling your actions to controlling your thoughts.
Slashdot Mirror
Catholicism is by far the largest and most important of them.
Perhaps, but Catholic doctrine bears little resemblance to the Christianity taught in the New Testament, whether you're talking about doctrine or organization. I can provide examples if you wish.
And even if I'm wrong, that still doesn't change my point. You see, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in revelation - therefore, if the New Testament does not support violence, then Christianity does not support violence, regardless of whether some Pope decides to slaughter a neighboring country.
A very revealing statement: what primarily matters to you is that Paul supported Christians. The fact that he was a torturer and murderer before doesn't matter to you,
If someone has demonstrated that they have changed, then no, their past behavior is not my concern.
Your comments, too, are revealing: you appear to think people can't change. (And if you do, then I don't understand what your objection is, since I'm merely asserting that Paul changed, and you have offered no evidence to the contrary.)
and you don't really ask the question of whether he continued torturing and murdering for Christianity (as his designated successors clearly did).
You're touching a few issues here. First, you've offered no evidence that he continued torturing and murdering for Christianity (and in fact there is none).
Second, Paul was never the head of Christ's Church; that was Peter (especially according to the Catholic Church).
Third, there never was a designated succession. The Bishop in Rome after Peter's death merely decided "Hey, Peter used to hang out here, so I'm going to be the leader now!" Other bishops disagreed, and it was eventually settled by committee (if I have my history right).
They didn't choose a new set of apostles and prophets (and the Catholics still have not to this day, despite the scriptural statement that apostles and prophets are necessary until we all come to a unity of the faith, which we have not).
The supposed succession gets even murkier after that when the papacy (as it was eventually called) was sold at auction, reassigned by royal decree, relocated, split into two and then three papacies (each claiming to be the only legitimate one!), and so on and so forth.
I can quote Catholic historians on the matter, if you don't believe me. My point is, there was no designated succession, and that's the whole crux of the problem. (It's also part of the source of my comments about how Catholicism does not reflect the teachings of the New Testament.)
Christians commit immoral acts all the time, and then go to confession or repent privately.
Dont' be silly. I'm merely observing that logically, one cannot simultaneously accept Christ (which means obeying him) and do something immoral (which means disobeying Christ). They are mutually exclusive states.
The goal of every Christian is to spend more and more time in the "obey Christ" state than in the "disobey Christ" state. I'll agree that it seems virtually impossible, but even the Bible teaches becoming Christlike is a process, not a switch.
Christian doctrine is quite clear on many things, many of them mutually contradictory. People like you like to pull out whichever doctrine happens to fit the argument.
Apparently your church was more lax about contradictions than mine; feel free to point out scriptures you think contradict each other, and I will be glad to show you how they don't.
No, what is "morbid and obscene" is getting people to place more importance on the pleasure or suffering in an imaginary afterlife than on our current life
You only think it's morbid because you think the afterlife is imaginary; if you could prove with certainty that it existed as advertised, would you still consider these things morbid?
(And for what it's worth, I believe most Christian churches severely overplay the amount of suffering that will go on after death.)
Experiencing the consequences of weight loss doesn't require you to die, and those consequences are real, observable, and repeatable. That is not true of "paradise".
Ah, so we've discovered your true objection:
"If I can't see it, it must not be real."
But let me ask you a question. You keep saying that Christianity is immoral, and that its high regard for the afterlife is morbid, but you have ignored something important:
What does Christianity tell people to do that is harmful?
Let's assume a hypothetical religion that has just one commandment: do not steal. Followers of this religion are taught that if they obey this one commandment, they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
Would you say this religion is harmful to society? If so, how? If not, how then is it immoral?
Christianity is little more than a giant commandment to treat people as you yourself would like to be treated.
If I do that for my whole life - if I treat people with respect and dignity, as I would like to be treated myself - how have I harmed society? If I haven't, then how is the religion immoral?
"changing who you are" in Christianity does not mean that you stop doing bad things; it may just mean that you feel bad about it afterwards
Does it, now? Please show me where the Bible teaches that.
Also, explain why the Bible contradicts you when it says things like:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
These verses explicitly state that one cannot merely pay lip service - one must do the Father's will!
they are universal and predate Christianity by millennia.
... according to you. Not according to my religion :) (By which I mean, Adam and Eve were taught by God, where they obtained their moral code, which they passed to their children... which eventually made its way to us. Sure, it was corrupted once or twice by apostasy, but that's what prophets are for...)
I'm sure that you are generally a fairly well-behaved person, but that doesn't automatically make you moral.
So your answer is no, you can't provide an example of what it is about my religion that makes me immoral.
You see, you're avoiding the question - you began by stating that you consider Christianity to be "intrinsically immoral". You have not clarified, so I assumed that you mean it makes people do immoral things; when I asked what it is about my religion that makes me do immoral things, you dodged the question entirely.
But let's take your "killing" example, because it contradicts your claims:
You may not have killed because (1) you haven't had a need or opportunity to, (2) you are afraid of eternal damnation, or (3) you have an intrinsic aversion to killing.
So, being religious, this leaves me with three possibilities:
a) I'm going to kill regardless
b) I have an intrinsic aversion to killing
c) I avoid killing because I'm afraid of eternal damnation
If we erase religion from the picture entirely, that leaves only two choices:
a) I'm going to kill regardless
b) I have an intrinsic aversion to killing
So you see, adding religion does nothing but reduce the chances that a given person will kill! How, exactly, is this a bad thing?
You are a moral person only if you do the right thing without coercion.
I agree that it is far better to obey out of an inherent desire to obey, rather than out of fear.
As a Christian, you do not have that choice, since reward and punishment in the afterlife is always hanging over your head.
That's ridiculous. It is not necessary to have no possibility of reward in order to choose to obey for the sake of obedience.
For example, it is true that if I refuse to help my wife out with the little things - taking out the trash, changing diapers, and so on - she will not be in the mood for intimacy. However, that does not mean sex must be the only motivation for doing these things for her; quite the contrary, I help her with these things merely because I want to help her.
My employer sometimes gives extra stock options as a reward for new ideas that increase profit. That does not mean I can't implement a new idea simply because it would be cool, without caring about the reward!
It's absurd to pretend that one cannot obey God for the sake of obedience, merely because God rewards obedience.
Deeds are insufficient for judging people.
And yet they're the only basis you have for judging anyone, since you can't know their thoughts. Thus either deed
In any case, there's violence even in the new testament. But I digress.
I'm interested in seeing where the New Testament encourages violence. Do tell.
Who are you to decide who's interpretation of the Bible is correct. These people simply are ignoring the teachings YOU claim to follow.
That's a reasonable point, but it's unfair of you to judge me by beliefs I don't share, so as long as you're willing to apply others' beliefs to me, I'm willing to pretend my beliefs are universal. Fair enough?
Nothing in the Bible says "And the dinosaur begateth many generations, some of which had minor mutations, and lo the chicken came into being". I suggest you take a good look at modern scientific theory before you make such claims.
When you're trying to give a large group of people the general idea of how a rather lengthy event occurred, you do not begin by giving a detailed account of three billion years of genetic evolution.
It's ridiculous to claim that in order for the Bible's account of the creation to be compatible with science it must describe in detail exactly what occurred and when, down to a description of genetic mutation.
To be more specific, the Bible's account of the creation is not meant to be a literal transcription of events; it's meant to be a conceptual grouping of events. The Bible's purpose in relating the creation is to tell us who did the creating, not how the creating was done.
Only every single war that used religion as a basis and every cult that sprang up based on an extreme view of a religion.
No no no no - I'm not letting you get away with that. You completely ignored my question. I didn't ask for examples of religion being a dangerous basis for morals; I asked for examples of how my religion is a dangerous basis for morals.
You yourself have pointed out that not all religions are alike; therefore it stands to reason that some religions are less dangerous than others as moral bases. But since you've categorically stated that all religions are a dangerous base for morals, then you must have at least one example specific to my religion.
So, I ask again - what belief in particular makes it dangerous for me to base my morals on my religion (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)?
And by the way, since you brought this up:
Only every single war that used religion as a basis and every cult that sprang up based on an extreme view of a religion.
I'd like to point out that six of the seven wars with the highest death tolls in history did not involve religion as a primary motivation for the war. See, for example, the list of wars and disasters by death toll on Wikipedia. (The one of seven that did involve religion as a primary motivator is fifth in the list.)
The Crusades, the dead horse everyone loves to beat, would be ranked at the bottom of that list. Not the bottom of the first seven - the bottom of the entire list of eighteen.
Statistically speaking, the largest wars in history were not based on religion.
So you tell me. Is it religion that causes violence, or do violent people merely use it sometimes to further their goals?
The essential premise of every religion is that you must have faith in things you can't prove, and are discouraged from testing.
No, not every religion; heck, even the Old Testament encourages its readers to test its promises on at least one occasion:
"10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to
So it's ok to hide your past in order to trick someone with your attitude into hiring you? I don't admire double standards and hypocracy, I think I'll hire the guy who's life is an open book.
... wow. Are you being deliberately thickheaded?
In order to expunge your record, you must first convince a judge - a trusted party - that you have changed. If you no longer have the disposition to steal, then it is proper for that past offense to be removed from your record; since you have changed, the bank would have no reason to deny your hire.
It's not hypocrisy to admit people can change, and it's certainly not a double-standard to support people when they do change.
I still think you'd be stupid to hire the guy with a juvenile record of theft to work at a bank, and I think it's even more moronic that you're defending it. In any case, we're wandering far from the original metaphor.
it's just that you don't have an unchanging and internally consistent set of beliefs, no human does.
I'm sorry you don't feel that you have an internally consistent set of beliefs. I believe people can certainly have consistent beliefs, and I'm quite certain I'm one of them. Feel free to challenge me on it with examples or hypotheticals, if you like.
Christianity teaches that it is necessary and sufficient to accept Christ.
... and yet again, you're conveniently ignoring what it means to "accept Christ". Merely saying the words is not sufficient; you must actually change who you are.
Many (most?) people see the law as utilitarian: as something that helps people stay out of each other's hair.
And yet our entire legal system was based on Christian morals... How convenient that you neglect to mention that.
(If you don't believe me, check out the laws against adultery in various states, as one example.)
But I agree - the law's job should be to keep people out of other people's hair. That doesn't change the fact that people with different morals have different boundaries - their hair, so to speak, varies in size.
But no amount of legislation will turn people like you into moral human beings
People like me. Wow. Can you please tell me a few things you think I've likely done (perhaps as a result of my religion) that you believe are immoral? (No, merely being Christian does not qualify.)
You would do well to judge people by their deeds, not by your own twisted interpretation of their beliefs.
In Christianity, if you suffer in this life, that's OK, as long as you have a good afterlife. Christian churches have used that to justify many transgressions against other human beings throughout history.
Christian doctrine is quite clear that causing others to suffer is a sin. Again: it is never OK to cause others to suffer. If there are Christians out there trying to use religion to justify causing others to suffer, then they're not living the religion they claim to follow.
I've been saying this all along - people doing violence in the name of Christianity are ignoring the religion they claim to follow.
Nothing you have said contradicts my point.
Christianity places great importance on this life only as a vehicle for attaining a desirable state in the afterlife. That is morbid and obscene.
By your logic, placing more importance on any goal than on the steps needed to reach it is morbid and obscene. You're being ridiculous.
Do you really think an obese person would be as successful at losing weight if you spent all day talking about how much exercise he needs to do and how much of his junk food he can't eat, instead of helping him focus on how he'll feel when he's through the hard part?
Focusing on a goal, rather than the difficult steps to get there, helps people achieve more. There's no reason this can't be as true of reaching the afterlife as it is of losing 150 pounds.
I didn't say "Show me a Catholic leader that advocated violence." I said "Show me where the New Testament advocates violence." There's a vast difference.
Or you can simply look at the story of Paul: here we have a man who persecuted and killed prior to his conversion to Christianity, but all of that was forgiven simply because he accepted Jesus.
There's nothing "simple" about accepting Jesus, and accepting Jesus involves far more than merely saying the words. If you believe Paul would be forgiven merely for paying lip service, then you're ignoring the scriptures which say otherwise, like this one in Matthew 7:
" 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Clearly, lip service is not enough; one must do the will of the Father. In order for Paul to be forgiven, he had to not merely stop harassing the local Christians, but he had to do that which God asked of him - that is, begin supporting the Christians.
But the church he founded then simply continued to commit the same acts of persecution and killing against non-Christians.
I guess you're going to make me come right out and say it: the Catholic Church bears little resemblance to the Church founded by the original Apostles, whether you look at doctrine or organization. I can give examples, if you'd like.
Any sufficiently large group of people contains people who commit violence, but that's not the issue.
But I'm saying it's precisely the issue - this whole thread began because someone proposed banning religion in an effort to curtail violence. I have shown that banning religion would not help toward that goal, precisely because any sufficiently large group of people contains people who commit violence, regardless of whether religion is involved.
with Christianity, acceptance of Christ is more important than moral behavior.
That sentence is self-contradictory. One cannot both accept Christ and engage in immoral behavior; when you do something immoral, you are rejecting Christ, by definition.
In reality, acceptance of Christ is dependent upon moral behavior.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."
And yet again you're ignoring context. He wasn't talking about physical, bloody wars; he was talking about a war of ideas.
I've quite clearly disproved your assertion by counter-example.
You're quite clearly incapable of quoting things in context.
I haven't argued that the Old Testament isn't part of Christianity. I've merely argued that the moral teachings of the Old Testament - where "an eye for an eye" is acceptable - were clearly replaced by "turn the other cheek" in the New Testament.
Any Christian who claims otherwise is deliberately ignoring the teachings of Him whom they claim to follow.
It's only with the itchy parts that they claim the new one has superseded it.
One could argue that that's no different than science. It's only with the itchy parts that you claim Relativity supersedes Newtonian physics; it's only where Relativity gets itchy that you claim Quantum Mechanics supersedes Relativity.
I'm not saying those things are wrong. I'm merely saying that no one book, no one theory, can tell the whole story.
My point is, just because someone came along and improved or refined something does not mean that thing is entirely invalid.
Christianity provides a perfectly logical, non-LEGO interpretation of the Old Testament. If you choose to ignore that interpretation, that's your choice, but judge my beliefs by my interpretation, not your illogical one.
I would not bet that there's such a line in the new testament, but the old is full of them. And yes, it is part of christianity. All the more benign quotes from it are commonly used. Pick and choose. Next crusade, the killing parts will be in favour again. Until then, pretend that they don't exist.
You're merely arguing that people misinterpret its teachings to suit their own existing desires; I've argued that myself. Yes, religion can make a convenient tool for people who wish to oppress others, but so can environmentalism, atheism, or anything else.
That does not change the fact that Christianity as taught by the New Testament does not condone violence.
Umm... wasn't Christ the first martyr
I didn't say he was ;)
the Catholic definition of being a saint is that they are gauranteed a place in heaven.
FTFY. The New Testament uses the term "saints" to mean merely "followers of Christ". See, for example, the salutation at the beginning of most of the epistles.
Killing abortion doctors might be a good cause for some christian sects and dying by way of the death penalty might be acceptable if they are rewarded in heaven.
... and yet any "Christian" sect that would support killing abortion doctors is quite blatantly ignoring Christ's teachings. That was my original point.
Just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't mean they are - it's especially obvious when they prove it by ignoring Christ's teachings. You shouldn't judge Christianity by the pretenders.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you just didn't read the rest of the chapter to get some context.
Christ is telling his followers that being a disciple of Christ is more important than anything else.
Compare with Matthew 10:37:
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Ignoring context is never a safe thing to do.
Stripping property from churches would accomplish nothing; individual members would merely buy the property themselves, and they'd continue functioning almost identically.
The only difference I can think of would be taxes, but that has its own problems.
Specifically, if you tax charitable donations to churches, you have to tax charitable donations to all other charitable organizations, because churches use those funds for various things including welfare and disaster assistance. See for example the LDS Church Humanitarian Efforts site.
Taxing those charitable donations reduces the amount of humanitarian aid given by those organizations, which basically shifts the burden to the government; since the same amount of aid is still needed, the government will have to spend that same income on humanitarian aid, minus the overhead of tax collection. The result is a net drop in humanitarian efforts.
Believe in an afterlive must certainly motivate suicide bombers
Not the Christian concept of the afterlife. Suicide bombers would, by Christian teachings, not go to heaven; so, quite the contrary, Christianity provides a disincentive for suicide bombing, despite believing in an afterlife.
the chistaina religion also has the concept of martyrdom
I think you're confused. The Bible doesn't say anything about martyrdom. Martyrdom is merely the concept that a person was killed for their beliefs and as a result became a symbol for his or her followers; it's not inherently religious, though that has been the most common case.
The problem with religion is that it provides a shortcut to the otherwise intelligent person's mind which bypasses their bullshit filter.
I agree, as it applies to religions which tell followers not to question their leaders.
I happen to belong to a religion which encourages members to decide for themselves what they believe. Arriving at my own conclusion after much study is, in no way, bypassing a "bullshit filter".
And, by the way, global warming is one of the things that I would say has taken advantage of the shortcut to the otherwise intelligent person's mind which bypasses their "bullshit filter" - and I would say that's true whether or not global warming is caused by humans, merely because so many people believe it for apparently no reason.
In other words, "I believe it because everyone else believes it" is not a valid basis for beliefs, and I think that applies to scientific-sounding conclusions as much as it applies to religion.
All the major religions have parts that say "kill the unbelievers" in them.
Please show me where the New Testament encourages followers to kill unbelievers. I won't hold my breath.
However, by the same rules that it passes to suppress violence, it creates more resentment. And resentment explodes in violence in a quite predictable manner.
I see. You're claiming that Christianity's teachings against violence are merely a front for a secret plot to suppress violent urges so much that they explode unwillingly.... yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Then decide whether that's a coincidence, related to a third common variable, or if there just might be something about it.
Correlation does not show causation; you know that. Not even if that correlation is statistically significant. (The famous example being the statistically significant correlation between ice cream sales and violent crime.)
Yes, religion can be and has been used as a tool for violence and oppression; so have environmentalism, atheism, and so on. Tools are neither good nor bad. Blame the people wielding the tool, not the tool itself.
No. They're just choosing which parts of their religious doctrines to follow. Most religions have both the equivalent of "do no harm" and "an eye for an eye".
Christianity does not have both - one replaced the other, quite explicitly.
People who choose "an eye for an eye" over "do no harm" are, as I said, ignoring the teachings of the religion they claim to follow.
(creation myth for a start)
That could mean any number of things; the story of the creation of the universe related by the Bible is entirely compatible with modern scientific theory.
Unless of course you insist on believing "day" is literal, despite the fact that the Hebrew didn't say "day"... in which case I'd agree with you.
People talk about religion being the basis of their morality but I can think of nothing more dangerous than basing your morality on fairy stories.
I'm interested in why you think it's dangerous for me to base my morals on my religion (I'm Mormon). Do you have examples? (Note that you can't use "I disagree with that moral conclusion" as a reason, because that's entirely arbitrary; you'd have to show how a particular moral belief would damage society, or even an individual, if it were widespread. I won't hold my breath.)
I'd say most religions thrive with exactly this behavior (it's one of religions strongest point to always be able to claim one thing and do another without anyone questioning it)!
Here you're confusing religion (the organization) with religion (the teachings). I won't disagree that many religious organizations are quite hypocritical.
Christ was quite outspoken against hypocrisy; people who claim to follow Christ's teachings would do well to remember that.
pretty much any holy book says it is ok to kill people who are not of same faith and that it is basically 'divine plan' for them to eventually suffer as much as possible.
... any holy book of which religion? Christians are discouraged from violence in the New Testament, and the Old Testament (covering Christians and Jews) only ever allows violence when specifically directed by a prophet of God. (Most Christians nowadays will tell you there are no more prophets, so by their own logic they can't be violent...)
A quick Google search shows that Hindu writings discourage violence, and that Muslim writings encourage non-violence.
So... do you have specific examples?
[But] to get good people to do bad things, really bad things, you need religion.
Hitler didn't need religion to do his thing. Neither did Stalin, Hussein, or any of the other famous oppressive dictators we all know and love.
Would you claim that those men's actions are not "really bad"? Would you claim, despite the lack of evidence, that they were secretly religious, just to stay consistent?
Religion is certainly not relevant to whether people are willing to do really bad things.
Christian teachings can be used to support both non-violence and violence
Please show me where the New Testament supports violence. (Unless you can do so, you're blowing smoke.)
Yes, but unlike religion, those other excuses are amenable to rational analysis.
... that doesn't change my point.
(Also, I don't believe religion and logic are mutually exclusive.)
The consequence has been many centuries of discrimination, oppression, and violence committed by Christians against others.
This is common to any group of people, whether or not those people are Christian. Don't blindly blame religion for the oppression.
You call it "affectations of religion", but really it's "affectations of a successful social movement". The fact that religions have many of the same characteristics does not make those characteristics inherently religious.
or they invent religion, or something close enough that the layman wouldn't know the difference, and invite along lots of other people to vent it on a large scale.
... like global warming? :)
(That was meant humorously. Please, nobody start a flame war about global warming/climate change/whatever, I'm not interested.)
Actually, sports have largely taken on that "venting violence" role in our society...
Why do you need a judge to expunge your record if you think a reasonable person would not hold your youthfull misdemeanours against you? Or are you saying that people who do hold such things against you are acting reasonably and thus you would act the same way?
If I ran a bank, and a new applicant had an unsealed juvenile record containing thefts, I don't think I'd hire that person. It's simple prudence. If the applicant can't be bothered to have his or her juvenile record expunged, then they can't be very serious about fixing up their life, can they?
If you would hire such a person, please tell me if you ever start a bank, so I can be sure not to do business there.
No I judge by deeds
The deeds of any person are based on that person's true beliefs. I wasn't trying to tell you to ignore the things people do, I was trying to tell you to judge people by their beliefs, not by your incomplete interpretation of their beliefs. Judging people by their deeds is one way of doing that.
christianity and judaism in their long lists of people you should put to death, like witches, homosexuals, etc.
I apparently missed this in several readings of the scriptures - where does the New Testament ever say "witches, homosexuals, etc" should be put to death?
And no, Jesus never said that the old testament is wrong and should be abandoned. And you know that.
The New Testament teaches quite clearly that the gospel taught by Jesus was the fulfillment of the law of Moses - it was a higher law, specifically meant to replace it. (Read the Epistle to the Hebrews before you disagree with me.)
No, Jesus never said the Old Testament was wrong. I didn't say he said it was wrong. I merely said he replaced it.
The principles taught by the Ten Commandments (for example) in the Old Testament are sound - Christ also taught them - but rather than focus on external change (controlling your actions), Christ focused on internal change (controlling your thoughts).
Thus Christ said (Matthew 5:27-28):
"27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Note the change in emphasis from controlling your actions to controlling your thoughts.