Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
254 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, ramoss (3 members, 251 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,693 Year: 3,339/14,102 Month: 280/724 Week: 38/91 Day: 3/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 40 of 652 (694224)
03-23-2013 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by GrimSqueaker
03-23-2013 5:38 AM


Morally Bankrupt
Fortunately on the religious side of this forum, scientific evidence is not required. Reasoned argumentation is and any support available for that argumentation.

I don't really see that you have supported the idea that Christianity has lost all sense of right and wrong.

From Message 1.

quote:
1 - Devine atonement for Sin is a moral loop hole.
If a person does wrong the proper path to righting that wrong is to make recompense to the individual who has been wronged and/or society, prayer and other wishful thinking are moot in comparison to this

Divine atonement isn't about righting the wrong that was done. Making amends is taught within Christianity.

quote:
2 - Heaven and Hell are Unjust.
All human lifes have a very limited scope for both the good and the ill that they can do, no person can ever rack up enough "Karma" either good or bad to justify an eternity of anything. Eternal reward seem dubious and eternal torture down right barbaric

Christianity can't send anyone to heaven or hell. That's God's choice. This really doesn't reflect on whether Christianity has lost all sense of right and wrong.

quote:
3 - Vicarious Redemption.
The crucifixion of Jesus for the atonement of sins is immoral, no person should ever be able to take moral responsibility for another. Certainly one can help someone else shoulder a burden in many ways but no one can take away someone else's responsibility for their actions. This central tenant strikes at the very idea of personal morality

That happened over 2000 years ago and wasn't done by Christians. Not really a point for your argument about Christianity. As pointed out above, atonement doesn't take away anyone's responsibility for their own actions.

quote:
4 - Freedom of Choice.
To expect everyone to fall in under a system whether they want to or not, to leave them no option to opt out is tyrannical and down right abusive. If you were born into a community or joined one who's rules you did not agree with you would be able to leave (although it could be difficult, think of the Berlin Wall for example) - Christianity offers no such claus

Morality deals with right and wrong behavior in day to day living. People can stop being Christians or become Christians. Even within the club they can be as active or inactive as they choose. If they don't like that particular group they can change to another one.

quote:
5 - Original Sin and Sins of the Father.
Personal responsibility and morality mean little to nothing in a culture where the vilification for crimes can be passed from one generation to the next.

Sins of the father gone before Christianity formed.

Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

The Original Sin Doctrine issue is more about explaining why man is not perfect. Basically blaming the inclination to sin on Adam.

Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[9]

This doesn't really show that Christianity has lost all sense of right and wrong.

quote:
6 - Thought Crimes.
Due to the mythic properties of the Christian god he is aware of what your thinking and judges you on it. This is a psychologically damaging and again grossly immoral standing as thoughts should never be subject to such critic, indeed in the case of Intrusive Thoughts (a common symptom of many psychological illnesses including stress and depression) particularly harmful and unfair as a person may be suffering from their own thoughts anyway and would require compassion and understanding not feelings of guilt and shame, which they probably are already feeling

Again, you're talking about God and making an assumption. Christianity isn't judging one's thoughts.

So how has Christianity actually lost all sense of right and wrong?

Universal Moral Code


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-23-2013 5:38 AM GrimSqueaker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-23-2013 10:17 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 51 of 652 (694269)
03-23-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GrimSqueaker
03-23-2013 10:17 AM


Re: Morally Bankrupt
If you want the quote boxes to work, you need to spell quote correctly. Also the point of a quote box is that you are actually quoting what a person is saying, not paraphrasing. What you are posting as a quote is not what I wrote in Message 40. It is your own statement. Please adjust your post accordingly.

Your point is that Christianity is (meaning right now) Morally Bankrupt (meaning lost all sense of right and wrong).

Actual quotes.

PurpleDawn writes:

Christianity can't send anyone to heaven or hell. That's God's choice. This really doesn't reflect on whether Christianity has lost all sense of right and wrong.

Christianity is made up of people. Those people are the ones with a sense of right and wrong. Christians can't send anyone to Christian heaven or Christian hell. It isn't an action they are capable of even if they wanted to. The one who supposedly has that capability is God. If one considers God to be a construct then there is no way for anyone to be sent to Christian heaven or Christian hell since humans don't have that capability.

Again morality deals with action. Do you have any support that anyone has actually been sent to Christian heaven or Christian hell by a human?

PurpleDawn writes:

Again, you're talking about God and making an assumption. Christianity isn't judging one's thoughts.

Show me that Christians have the capability to judge one's thoughts.

quote:
That's a bit silly. A God is a construct of the people within a certain belief system, even if a god was a real think the people who choose to worship him are responsible fpr their choice in worshipping it and condone it ie. If I worship a serpentheadedgod that demands blood sacrifice one can assume I condone blood sacrifice
You really need to lay off the fictional examples. What you presented isn't along the same lines as the issue up for discussion. You presented an scenario where humans could act.

The Christian God isn't presented as demanding that humans send people to Christian heaven, Christian hell, or to read minds and judge accordingly. Only God has that power.

If God is a construct, there is no action and therefore no moral issue.

If God is real, then one needs to provide support that an action has actually taken place before one can say that Christians are condoning an immoral act.

So how has Christianity today actually lost all sense of right and wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-23-2013 10:17 AM GrimSqueaker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-23-2013 1:34 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 56 of 652 (694316)
03-23-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by GrimSqueaker
03-23-2013 1:48 PM


If your post was a direct respond to a particular poster, you need to make sure you hit the reply button. You don't always steem to use it and your posts sound like you are responding to a particular post.

quote:
Adultery is a sin so I believe that would qualify as a thought crime statement
Jesus supposedly made that statement in Matthew 5:22. The book of Matthew has a date range of 80-100CE. That's almost 50 years after Jesus left. Early Christian Writings

Judaism has it also.

Babylonian Talmud, Kallah, Ch. 1 - One who gazes lustfully upon the small finger of a married woman, it is as if he has committed adultery with her.

As I mentioned earlier, you made this thread about Christianity today and claiming it has lost all sense of right and wrong. Humans can't read your thoughts and can't act on them. So Christianity won't be judging you

quote:
Again as far as I'm aware by not accepting Jesus as savior etc I am destined for hell, although I have renounced my previous faith apparently I will face judgement for simply being an atheist (as do Pagans, Buddists, etc) - this is an immoral proposition, I asked for no part in this system and yet I'll be judged on it? That is unfair
When one quits Christianity it is wise to leave behind the baggage.

You're still talking about God and not Christianity. Christians cannot send you to hell. Only God can.

Show us that Christianity is morally bankrupt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-23-2013 1:48 PM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 60 of 652 (694361)
03-24-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by GrimSqueaker
03-24-2013 7:12 AM


Bad form to change the title. The new one wouldn't work any better for you. Is means in the present.

quote:
God is a construct of those who choose to believe and interpet - hence it is illogical and kinda a cop out to say "don't blame the Christians it's god that decides this", even if he is real Christians decide to go along with it which at the very least makes them an assersory to his monstrosity - although Id be happy to tweak the title of this thread if it is causing issue, would "God is a soulless monster" be preferrable?
Great so God's a construct and Christians support that construct's right to send anyone who doesn't believe appropriately to Christian hell. People support the idea that Santa Clause shouldn't bring toys to bad kids. That doesn't mean the people have lost all sense of right and wrong, which is what morally bankrupt means. Notice the word all.

People make up Christianity. The construct is not Christianity.

Start answering some of the questions asked of you and we might get the discussion moving. You're just repeating yourself and restating your position. Move forward with the discussion.

People do right behavior and wrong behavior. How many wrongs are needed before a real person is considered immoral?

Again morality deals with actions. Decide whether you're arguing from the viewpoint of God as a construct or God as real. A construct can't send anyone to Christian hell or read anyone's mind. Neither can humans. No action is taking place.

You're trying to argue about a foundational myth and deeming anyone who likes it as morally bankrupt. Rooting for the bad guys in a story doesn't make one morally bankrupt. Moral bankruptcy depends on actions.

If you're arguing from the standpoint that God is real, then you need to show that an immoral action has taken place in the present age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-24-2013 7:12 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 64 of 652 (694411)
03-24-2013 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by GrimSqueaker
03-24-2013 2:06 PM


Clear As MudIt is my hypothosis, one that I would like to debate, that Christianiy al
quote:
It is my hypothosis, one that I would like to debate, that Christianiy although it indeed has some tenants that are moral - but it's net worth of morality is in deficit, as it holds many beliefs and rules which are questionable at best, through immoral to perhaps down right evil.

I really hope this is a bit clearer now.......


You keep coming up with premises and hypotheses, but you aren't presenting a logical argument that supports the position you keep tweaking.

Your hypothesis is still about the present. Make your case, stick to a position, and provide support.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-24-2013 2:06 PM GrimSqueaker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-24-2013 4:58 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 77 of 652 (694502)
03-25-2013 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by GrimSqueaker
03-25-2013 6:19 AM


End of the World
quote:
"I accept that the sun is going to become a red giant and will likely incinerate the entire inner solar system. Before that, the sun's aging will have erased all terrestrial life. I claim that those are the consequences for even those who worship Apollo and believe he will prevent such things. I don't accept that my belief in such a horrible thing is morally bankrupt."
And anyone who doesn't believe in such a horrible end to the planet should consider anyone who does to be morally bankrupt, correct? That's where your logic is going. Perspective.

Moral Bankruptcy

Moral bankruptcy is a synonym for immorality that has gained popular usage in the fields of business and politics, in which it specifically implies some instance of political corruption or corporate crime. It is a negatively connoted term referring to the deterioration or devaluation of morality in a person or entity, usually with the implication that the person or entity is aware of and responsible themselves for this deterioration. Moral bankruptcy, therefore, suggests that an individual has a sense of what is both morally good and bad (i.e. right and wrong), but consciously and deliberately chooses to make decisions in accord with the morally bad. Because of its negative connotation, the term tends in particular to mean both a selfish and consistent disregard for morality (where morality means a certain ethical domain, like propriety, justice, duty, the law, etc.). Moral bankruptcy may be distinguished from amorality, which is simply any absence of morality (e.g. some animals as an entire species may be considered amoral simply because they do not belong to cultures with moral codes). One who is exhibiting moral bankruptcy is said to be morally bankrupt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-25-2013 6:19 AM GrimSqueaker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-25-2013 9:31 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 79 of 652 (694519)
03-25-2013 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by GrimSqueaker
03-25-2013 6:15 AM


The Above
If you haven't already, I suggest you read the Forum Guidelines.

As I said in Message 40, you haven't supported the idea that Christianity is morally bankrupt or that those who believe the doctrines you listed in Message 1 are morally bankrupt.

I addressed your list in Message 40, but your rebuttal didn't provide any additional support or evidence for your position and neither have the rest of your posts.

GrimSqueaker writes:

If I get u right what your saying is (well partially that some of my assumptions r wrong and maybe I can tackle that later but - )

[qoute] Don't blame Christians for what their God does [/qoute]

That's a bit silly. A God is a construct of the people within a certain belief system, even if a god was a real think the people who choose to worship him are responsible fpr their choice in worshipping it and condone it ie. If I worship a serpentheadedgod that demands blood sacrifice one can assume I condone blood sacrifice

BTW, you still haven't corrected the improper quote. It is not a quote from my post, please use the edit button and correct Message 39.

If you truly want to debate this topic, then counter my arguments with something other than God is a construct and guilt by association.

Moral Bankruptcy means that an individual knows what is both morally right and wrong, but deliberately chooses to make decisions and actions in accord with the wrong. They knowingly choose wrong.

One could probably make a case that telling children that Santa Claus is real or leading them to believe he is real is immoral. In this case parents know that the Santa of today is fictional, but lie to deceive their children anyway. Santa watching to see if the child is naughty or nice. There is No Santa Claus

That is an act of telling a falsehood because the parent knows it's fiction. Does this make all the parents and businesses morally bankrupt?

I've asked twice before, how many wrongs does it take to constitute moral bankruptcy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-25-2013 6:15 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 81 of 652 (694522)
03-25-2013 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by GrimSqueaker
03-25-2013 9:31 AM


Re: End of the World
quote:
But I never said "A Christian" - ice explicted stated I was referring to the system Christanity and not Christians themselves
I didn't say a Christian either. My point concerned perspective.

Who do you think wrote the doctrines?????? Christians!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-25-2013 9:31 AM GrimSqueaker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-25-2013 10:48 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 95 of 652 (694807)
03-29-2013 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jazzns
03-25-2013 11:47 PM


Re: Missing the point
I assume we aren't really addressing moral bankruptcy anymore.

quote:
I already mentioned one, vicarious redemption is immoral. We do not allow whipping boys in our society. Its wrong and there is no, "the sun is going to blow up" analogy for you to hide behind. It is precisely wrong because it is an idea that comes from the immoral agency of God's so-call judgement of mankind. Without that agency, the notion that we even NEED redemption falls down completely.
If we're going by what some believe, which I think we are since we aren't going by a natural reading of the Bible, then Jesus was not a whipping boy. He was God who came in human form and died to appease himself. Since he's God he didn't really die as we do.

Christians believe that the purpose of mankind is to serve God. This makes God master and he has the right to judge mankind in the afterlife. No different than our legal system judging us in life.

quote:
The idea of heaven and hell is another good one. Which one you go to is solely determined by the agency of God! You can draw a similarity between hell and the Earth engulfed by the sun but the sun is not making a choice between burning the Earth or between burning some people on the earth for eternity.
No different than being acquitted or found guilty. This happens in the afterlife and no one knows what has or will happen.

Neither of these take place in the living world.

One could probably make a case that telling children that Santa Claus is real or leading them to believe he is real is immoral. In this case parents know that the Santa of today is fictional, but lie to deceive their children anyway. Santa watching to see if the child is naughty or nice. There is No Santa Claus.

That is an act of telling a falsehood because the parent knows it's fiction. Does this make all the parents and businesses immoral? Same with the Boogieman or any other lie we tell to manipulate others.

People manipulate people. It's part of our world.

In some small towns, the Church is the only community center available. For some elderly, Church is the best source of a social life. One can go without having to buy into the tenets.

If one doesn't want to be manipulated, one needs to do their homework.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jazzns, posted 03-25-2013 11:47 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 03-29-2013 10:42 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 106 of 652 (694845)
03-29-2013 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Jazzns
03-29-2013 10:42 AM


Re: Still missing the point
quote:
Why would you assume that? What part of the discussion was not talking about the morality of the ideas involved in Christianity?
Because the originator didn't even know there was a definition to moral bankruptcy (Message 78) and moral bankruptcy is about action, not ideas.

Moral Bankruptcy Message 77
It is a negatively connoted term referring to the deterioration or devaluation of morality in a person or entity, usually with the implication that the person or entity is aware of and responsible themselves for this deterioration. Moral bankruptcy, therefore, suggests that an individual has a sense of what is both morally good and bad (i.e. right and wrong), but consciously and deliberately chooses to make decisions in accord with the morally bad.

quote:
Nothing in your reply addressed the issue of agency. You quibbled about whether Jesus really counts as vicarious redemption and whether the whole heaven/hell selection was any different from a normal justice system. Those are examples I am using to support a larger point.
I'm not really sure how you're using the word agency. I'm assuming you're using it as a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved. If not, clarification would help.

quote:
My point was originally, and remains, that our ability to judge the morality of these beliefs versus random acts of nature rests in the agency and intent embedded in the belief.
Which is another reason I assumed we weren't talking about moral bankruptcy anymore. Your position doesn't really have anything to do with moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy is about actions of the living, not beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 03-29-2013 10:42 AM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Jazzns, posted 03-29-2013 11:28 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 121 of 652 (694877)
03-30-2013 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jazzns
03-29-2013 11:41 PM


Christianity Today
quote:
Some of us think that these beliefs are destructive. How do you propose we talk about them in a rational manner?
So it isn't just the idea, but the subsequent action that is a concern. See I'm not being overly pedantic.

Show the destructive action in today's world that results from the beliefs considered to be immoral. Then we can debate whether the actions are immoral or not and whether they are due to the belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jazzns, posted 03-29-2013 11:41 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:11 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 122 of 652 (694880)
03-30-2013 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tangle
03-30-2013 5:23 AM


quote:
"explain to me why I deserve, at best, everlasting denial of happiness and why an entity that is supposed to be perfect love, would do this to me. And then explain why it would be a moral act"

Why is it moral to condemn a perfectly decent bloke to everlasting hell?


Hell's not so bad since the fires are out now.
Photos of Hell

Christian views on hell generally hold it to be place or a state in which the souls of the damned suffer the consequences of their sins.

Damnation (from Latin damnatio) is the concept of everlasting divine punishment and/or disgrace, especially the punishment for sin as threatened by God (e.g. Mark 3:29). A damned being "in damnation" is said to be either in Hell, or living in a state wherein they are divorced from Heaven and/or in a state of disgrace from God's favor.

Morality is set by the society. The afterlife is a different society than the living. Gods rules the afterlife. They may consider it very moral to condemn a perfectly decent bloke to hell.

Of course, we really don't know what hell or heaven are like or how we are manifested in that world. They both may be torturous.

So what effect does the belief in such bunkum have on our society today?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2013 5:23 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2013 8:29 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 124 of 652 (694883)
03-30-2013 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Tangle
03-30-2013 8:29 AM


quote:
Are you really satisfied with that answer? You have just described an immoral god.

You have also described a god that you have no way at all of knowing whether you're pleasing or insulting by your actions - including worshipping him.


His world, his morals. Those who believe and join the club know the rules for their god. That's the purpose of revelation.

Now answer the question I asked. What effect does the belief in such bunkum have on our society today????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2013 8:29 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2013 12:01 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 135 of 652 (694913)
03-30-2013 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tangle
03-30-2013 12:01 PM


The Afterlife
quote:
According to you, you can not know his rules because only he knows them and they can be anything he wants, including behaving immorally.
I didn't, you did. I said it is a different society. It's like when the Europeans came to North America and considered some Native American ways to be immoral or unnatural. Cherokee Families

quote:
In other words, it's totally irrational and inconsistent. It's therefore purely imaginary.
Please decide which way you want to argue. Either as gods exist or they don't. I don't care which, but don't wimble back and forth.

I've been arguing from the standpoint of gods existing. Who said the afterlife was fair by our standards?

quote:
it means that those who believe the bunkum carry a pile of anti-rational baggage around with them and feel that they need to impose their whacky beliefs on society - nasty things like homosexual prejudices, dangerous and murderous contraception policies and attempt to get their erroneous beliefs and values into our classrooms - re-inventing the whole of biology, geology and astronomy for their own batty beliefs.
How does any of this go against the moral standards of a society. I'm in the US. Please show support that any of this deals with the Christian system.

Show me the immoral acts due to believing in Christian hell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2013 12:01 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 3:49 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2359 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 139 of 652 (694930)
03-31-2013 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Tangle
03-31-2013 3:24 AM


Re: It's all about the heart
This thread isn't about the validity of a belief. As best as can be determined the originator argued that certain Christian doctrines are immoral in his opinion. (See Message 1)

Biblically speaking, we are all going to hell.

Hell is the Grave


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2013 3:24 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021