Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

Do I really have to ask all my questions twice????

quote:

---

How can a God be unfair by our standards and still be regarded as moral by us?

---

We are talking about the afterlife. As far as I know, religions are the only ones with standards concerning the afterlife. Biblically speaking, the wicked are punished. Unfortunately in this thread we working with what beliefs have become or what the originator thinks the belief is, not necessarily biblical.

quote:

---

If morality is defined as anything a god decides is moral for him, it serves no purpose for us. "Do as I say, not as I do" is not nomally regarded as the Christian message.

---

I didn't change the meaning of morality. It still means a doctrine of system of moral conduct. In our society, there is the idea that the wicked are to be punished. The Hell belief isn't any different.So back to my question: How does any of the issues you mentioned in Message 125 go against the moral standards or conduct of our society? (I'm in the US.) Please show support that any of this deals with the Christian system.What immoral actions does the belief in a fiery hell cause??????

quote:

---

---

No you didn't. It isn't the same as the first question I had to ask twice and it is very much in line with this topic. I'm not asking how Christianity is bad for society. I'm asking for specific immoral actions as a result of the belief in Christian heaven or hell.If your position is that the belief is immoral, it really is of no consequence unless it leads to an immoral action. As I've shown earlier in the thread, humans can't send anyone to Christian hell. So there is no human immoral action associated with this belief. As far as I know there isn't any moral code or law that says a god can't do what he wants with the dead.I've also shown evidence that the idea of eternal punishment is incorrect when examining the text. So one feels an erroneous belief is unfair and immoral. Who cares unless it manifests itself as immoral acts in the real world?My question: How do any of the issues you mentioned in Message 125 go against the moral standards or conduct of our society today? Please show support that any of this deals with the Christian system.What immoral actions does the belief in a fiery hell cause???

quote:

---

Biblically or otherwise, it's wicked to punish people who lead good lives just because they find that the evidence for a creator is inadequate to support a belief or because they were born in the wrong country to the wrong parents.

---

Seriously! Show me that that is the doctrine of Hell. You don't have any more support for your view of it than the Christians who are off in their thinking.

quote:

---

THAT is what we're discussing, whether Christianity is morally bankrupt. The concept of hell where good people are sent for no fault of their own is the proof.

---

That's your concept. Show support for it in the Christian teachings of today.If the Christian system takes no actions that go against the moral standards of society due to the beliefs, then it isn't morally bankrupt. Just because someone doesn't like the belief and feels it is unjust, doesn't make it immoral.

IOW, no real life morality issues with the beliefs.

quote:

---

But, on balance, it seems to me that whatever the thing is, hell is a bad place and that God will send a person to it whether they have lead a good life or not, even if they've never heard of him.

​

That is defacto unjust and therefor immoral.

---

De facto still deals with actions, not beliefs. You don't have evidence that in practice good people are actually sent to your image of Christian hell. Sorry, back to belief and not action.In Message 163, you provided the reason it is fruitless to try and label Christianity as morally bankrupt based on a belief. Just as you can find defense for your vision of hell. One also can't tell if one is giving lip service or actually believes any given version.That's why if one is going to cry immorality, it is best to show the immoral actions stemming from the belief.If no immoral actions result from your version of the doctrine, then what's the point?If you don't like your version, then change it.

quote:

---

I am an atheist, I do not have a view of what hell is or isn't because I know it doesn't exist. I'm merely playing back what those that do believe it say it is - which is everything from non-existent oblivion, fire and brimstone, to separation from god.

---

It also goes to just ceasing to exist.As I've said before, this isn't about you. You chose a side of the debate. I don't care whether you have a religion or are religion free.If you're going to take the stance that Christianity is morally bankrupt because some Christians believe in a torturous hell or that good people can go to hell, then you need to support that connection.You keep presenting the "good people can go to hell for not believing in God" version. You aren't accepting other versions. You keep going back to that one. It's your job to support it. Just because some believe it, doesn't make Christianity as a whole morally bankrupt.So we'll play the game.
Hell exists and they do send good people to hell for not believing in God. Now what? That's the afterlife. What has that got to do with reality now? If that belief does not cause Christians to do immoral acts right now, then it is irrelevant to the idea that Christianity is morally bankrupt today. They'll just be singing "I told you so" in the afterlife. Now hell exists and only really really bad people go to hell and it doesn't matter if one believes in a god or not. Now what? That's the afterlife. Now Christianity is not morally bankrupt by your standard.Both views are held within Christianity today. You're judging Christianity immoral due to one belief but disallowing the belief you would consider just. How fair is that??Your excuse for not defending the stance you took is that you know hell doesn't exist, so that means no one is in danger of being wrongfully sent to hell, but your stance judges Christianity morally bankrupt because of an erroneous belief by some. That's fair???That's like throwing someone in jail when you know they are innocent. Isn't that what you were basically accusing the Christian God of?The difference is you're throwing them in jail just because they believe, not their actions.

quote:

---

I do not want or expect certainty, what I require is evidence.

---

But you don't provide evidence for your stance concerning heaven and hell Message 149.The reasons in Message 1 are the originator's reasons for claiming that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system. They aren't evidence that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system.If you're taking the stance that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system due to the reasons provided in the OP, then you also need to provide evidence that Christianity is actually a morally bankrupt system.Not liking some views of the doctrines or teachings doesn't make Christianity a morally bankrupt system.

quote:

---

There are several Christian versions of hell - which you have quoted me as saying - total oblivion (ie non-existant hell), fire and brimstone, seperation from God. (There are more, Catholics have a kind of time limited hell called Limbo, soon to be abolished apparently - there's no end to human imagination on this subject)

​

It doesn't matter which version you choose, if the view is that the god either sends good people to it or denies them entry to heaven (the 'hell does not exist' version) simply because they do not believe in him, that is an immoral act by every definition that we have.

---

You're trying to flip the responsibility. I realize it is better for you if you can keep the believers trying to defend or justify their belief instead of actually supporting your position. The claim in the OP is that Christianity is morally bankrupt. That means the system, not just one person. (Message 1)
You have taken that stance.So one belief is unjust. Two others aren't. That means the doctrine of hell isn't a viable argument that Christianity is morally bankrupt. There is no consensus except that one will be judged. They do not have to reach a consensus for you or justify their belief. That is Christianity. The onus is on you or those who take the stance of the OP to show that Christianity, as is, is morally bankrupt.We have very clearly shown that there is no single version of the hell doctrine and they are not all unjust. One version is not evidence of a morally bankrupt system.What other evidence do you have that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system?

quote:

---

Then, I would add, if a good bloke CAN get to heaven without accepting Christ as the saviour, religious belief is redundant.

---

Which you have been shown. Fortunately being redundant is not immoral.

Then provide a better working definition.

quote:

---

You have decided to have an argument with the title of the thread and not the theme of the OP.

---

No I haven't.From the OP: "I propose that Christianity is essentially a morally bankrupt system."That's not the title. Then he provided his reasons which have been addressed.People can also wallow in ignorance and live their entire life with unnecessary guilt and anxiety outside of Christianity. That points more to personality types as opposed to the system or doctrines.

quote:

---

The ideas themselves can be evaluated and reasonable people can talk about their value and purpose.

---

Value and purpose for who? Value and purpose are in the eye of the beholder.

quote:

---

No. If you want to do that you can go start up a different conversaion with someone else. I joined this thread to talk about ideas and their value which is exactly what the OP is asking for given a reasonable reading of it.

---

You can stop responding to me any time you want.

quote:

---

I have.

​

Message 113

---

An that's where you said that some of you feel these ideas are destructive. That deals with action, but you won't address the actions. That's like not hearing the charges in court. If the Christians don't see destructive actions associated with these ideas, how can their ideas be destructive? You apparently see it, but won't say.How can one talk rationally about it when the opposition won't present the supposed destruction.

quote:

---

The point remains PD, that the person who started this thread, and the people who have joined in on his side such as myself and Tangle, are actually interested in the THEME of the OP which is addressing the value of the ideas expressed as common Christian beliefs.

---

I don't feel you and Tangle are really interested in the value. I feel the attempt is to cry immoral and lump beliefs together, but not really address the value the beliefs have for Christians. Just as you squawked because you felt I was too literal about moral bankruptcy, your side may be viewing the doctrines (when we can discern real doctrine out of that mess) too literally. The basic idea is that good people go to heaven and bad people to to hell. I don't feel the one's who believe in the erroneous idea of eternal torture really believe that good people will be included. There are always exceptions of course.As Christians try to explain the value, the opposition just cries immoral, useless, imaginary, myth, etc.It doesn't help to point out mistranslations, because the opposition jumps to current beliefs. Take God as real to cry immoral but fake when it suits.

quote:

---

You are the one who started the conversation on this thread with me by proclaiming me as off topic regarding moral bankruptcy.

---

I didn't proclaim you off topic in my first post to you. (Message 95) I don't see that I did in any response. We just had a difference of opinion on what moral bankruptcy is.I was moving away from "moral bankruptcy" and just looking at the morality of the ideas. My post didn't deal with moral bankruptcy. But your response asked "why would I assume we weren't talking about moral bankruptcy?" and blew off my points concerning vicarious redemption.I gave the definition I was using in Message 77. Neither you, nor the originator corrected my impression. In Message 80, he said he meant something different, but didn't elaborate. I told you that is why I assumed we weren't talking about moral bankruptcy anymore in Message 106 and provided my definition again. You say he talking about the negative quality of the ideas and I'm being to pedantic. But you didn't provide any support that that is what moral bankruptcy is.I guess you're not the only one who thinks there's a shell game going on.

quote:

---

There very first line you wrote to me in this thread was to suggest that I wasn't talking about moral bankruptcy. How you were able to do that considering what I had said up to that point is only possible according to your narrowing of what YOU considered eligible for discussion under your wikipedia definition. You did not reply to the points I was trying to make at all.

---

I said we, not you and my response clarified that it wasn't about you and yet you persist in a false accusation.You don't think I was addressing your points, I thought I was.

quote:

---

That is because I don't particularly care about creating a perfect definition of moral bankruptcy. I am perfectly happy with a general understanding of what is being asked in the OP taking it as a whole. It is about ideas common to many forms of Christianity and their morality as ideas.

---

Complain because we don't get it, but don't really want to help. Nice.Apparently we are unable to communicate clearly with each other.
Have a great day.