The Horrors of christianity

There are actually more than just one question here, I just kind of lumped them together.


The first being
“The issue is this, if all these and other, similar acts are done in their god's name, and it (the supposed god) does not act to curb this sort of activity when it is presented as a “good, kind, benevolent, etc., god, then is it logical to assume that it is either being presented in a fraudulent manner”


The second being:
“it lied to it's followers since it supposedly makes that claim of goodness in it's “holy book” (if it actually was real) yet allows, and even encourages it's followers to act as they have throughout history,” (The “it” referred to here being the actual christian god)


Third:
“or, is it more logical that we can assume that it actually does not exist, and the followers of christianity use it as a figurehead to their own ends”


Since the issues pertain to whether or not the actual christian concept of a god exists, and if it did, then the following qualifier was added:
“Please don't resort to the “free will” escape route. If this entity actually existed, and acted as the bible states, then it would have either stopped these acts itself, or sent it's agent to correct what was going on before they happened, since a supposed omnipotent being would know ahead of time they were going to happen.”


To answer the first:
If a supposedly kind and benevolent supernatural entity allows the horrors its follower perpetrate in its name to take place, then it IS being presented in a fraudulent manner. It can then be assumed that it either does not exist, or does not care what its followers do in its name.


The second:
If that same entity purports to be something that evidence shows it is not, in this case, a kind and benevolent type being, and then not only allows, but demands that its followers perform acts of horror in its name, then obviously it lied to its followers, if it was in fact real.


The third:
If there is no continued contact with an entity that supposedly exists, and what contact it supposedly had with people who would be able to record that contact is unverifiable, then it would be logical to assume that it probably never existed at all, since only with verifiable evidence can anyone be reasonably expected to believe in something.


So, a logical conclusion can be made in this instance that:
The christian god either does not exist, is a liar and a sadist, or is a fraud perpetrated on mankind by criminals.

 

The more logical conclusion is that your straw man facts do not exist.

 

But they continue to happen in the christian gods name. I earlier posted examples of how they continue, albeit not as severe, to be honest. Hatred of gays, Wiccans, denigrating other beliefs, these all continue to this day. If this god existed, then why would it allow criminal activity to continue? I posted my thoughts on this just above.

Not to be argumentative, but there is evidence that the Jesus you mention here probably did not even exist. A point I was making with this thread, although in a very round about way, is that the entire christian belief system is based on a lie, and the existence of Jesus is, I believe, just one more part of that lie. Even early Christians did not speak of a human Christ:

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem.
-- The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Journal of Higher Criticism) http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm
​

I agree that there is lots of great philosophy found in all the supernatural type religions religious writings, but that does not make a deity real, and to only focus on the positive is only seeing one side of the issue. As does only focusing on the negative. But the point I was trying to make with this thread is found in the post above where I answered my own questions. And, really, if a person were to subscribe to the teachings of an individual, and there were questions regarding the teachings, even the very existence of that individual, wouldn't you agree that it would be prudent to verify everything pertaining to it?

How can a vision be considered fact? St. Saul's testimony can be ignored quite safely, if what he tells us is true, namely, that he never met Jesus "in the flesh", it turns out that only four [of the 13 letters attributed to Paul] can be shown to be substantially by the same author, putatively Saul. Even the letters supposed to contain authentic writings of Saul/Paul have been shown by a number of scholars to be as composite as the gospels. The core Pauline material in these letters is what might be termed a pre-Christian Gnostic product.
The Falsified Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight by Hermann Detering (NT scholarship of the Radikal Kritik school):

This book shows that all the Pauline letters are all 2nd-Century fabrications, Catholically redacted from Marcionite gnostic dualist-god original versions.

​

This is also in question. First, the Jesus of the NT would have to have actually existed.
"Even the death of Christ is presented in mythical terms. Passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:13 ("We believe Jesus died and rose again"), and the apparent designation of scripture as the source of Paul’s doctrine that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3), suggest that Christ’s death was an article of faith, not a remembered historical event. The same is true, of course, for the resurrection. Paul never places Jesus’ death in an historical setting (he never even tells us that Christ was tried), and in 1 Corinthians 2:8 he assigns responsibility for the crucifixion to the "rulers of this age" who unwittingly crucified "the Lord of glory" and thereby ensured their own destined destruction." http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

I think this actually supports my position of there not being a god as described in christian teachings. How could an omnipotent being allow things to go so sideways without stepping in and correcting what was going on?

Again, I think this actually supports the point I was making.

I agree that not all christians should automatically be regarded as "evil", but again, this supports my point that the christian god either does not exist, or does not care, or the acts of aggression committed in its name would not have happened.

I think it is more attributable to good people trying to do the right thing, more than anything else that makes good christians. I think that they use the good points in the bible to try to make the world a better place, but it still doesn't resolve the question of where is the christian god in all this? Why doesn't it take an active hand to teach the ones who defile it's name and commit acts of horror in its name and teach what it supposedly really wants?

Obviously everyone has free will, and can and will use it in the manner they want. It does not, however, do anything to prove that the supposed christian god either cares about what happens, or even exists, which I why I asked that it not be included in the discussion.

Of course, we first have to determine whether or not the omnipotent and omniscient being even exists, which is still open to debate, and for most people a matter of faith, which most everyone agrees means believing in something that has not been proven to exist.

This still begs the question of the existence of your god. There is no proof that your god conferred anything on anything.

I surely agree. But is it better to bring about that order and harmony based on facts and logic, with the best understanding of our universe we can, or by relying on faith, which really does not prove anything?

I think there are many other avenues that would work better than relying on writings that are based on myth. Philosphers come and go, some offer great insights, while others mystical babble that people are still trying to sort out. Why would anyone want to rely on something that has such a bad history, is based on questionable evidence, and relies on supernatural events for its authority?

Thanks for posting, I enjoyed reading it.

 

god is experienced first as super-rational , and then reason can
apply . reason cannot apply to originality . it comes later .

 

I think we all assume the existence or not of that being, and this is where problems start. No one wants to be wrong, so the wars start, the hatred sets in, etc.

That, and worrying about whether this is all there is.

 

So you're saying that because some people do bad things in the name of Christianity, Christianity or God is somehow to blame. Are atheists to blame for bad things done by atheists, e.g., Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong il, etc.? Atheism was an integral part of the ideology of dialectical materialism on which they based their claims to legitimacy. I'd say no, and neither are Christians to blame for the Klan. It's quite obvious that lots of people (possibly most) calling themselves Christians are messed up. To use the cliche, Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. And there are passages in the Bible that have been used to support evil. I don't believe the Bible is the "word of God"--just the words of men trying to find God. Taken literally, the Bible supports genocide, sexism, slavery, homophobia, and other bad things; so the reader must be discriminating and take things in common to get the good out of it. You ask the question, if "this God" existed why would he not intervene and straighten things out.? I think I dealt with that in the previous post, but several explanations come to mind. First of all, what do you mean by the "Christian God'? The Dude in the Sky that used to be so actively interventionist in the Bronze Age but has taken a more laid back approach since then? Like most Progressive Christians, I take an historical-metaphorical approach to the Bible. Rather than say the Christian God doesn't exist, I prefer to say the anthropomorphic concept of God depicted in Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions probably doesn't exist, or is far different than the writers conveyed.

No need to apologize for being argumentative around here. That's what it's all about. I'm familiar with Doherty's thesis, which is still a minority view among scholars. I think Bart Ehrman has the better of the argument in Did Jesus Exist? This is one of those arguments like did King Arthur exist? Most scholars think he probably did, but none think he and his band of knights engaged in all those exploits attributed to them. The historical Jesus is murky, and occasionally passages suggest he might have had more in common with David Koresh than I'd like to think. The historical existence of many of my heroes--Socrates, the Buddha, etc.--could be disputed but I admire them anyhow. The Jesus whom I worship is the legend--real in a greater sense than any document could convey.

Since it wasn't my vision, I couldn't say. As a product of secular education, myself, I'd suspect an hallucination. But it certainly was an important one-- right up there with the religious experiences of Luther and Mohammed.

If we're going to be skeptical about Jesus, God, and Paul, maybe we should extend that to some of the writers who contribute to the cottage industry about them. I'm willing to concede that seven of Paul's letters were pseudographic (forged) and others altered, but I'd have to see more evidence to accept Detering's extravagant claims.

God might not be "omnipotent" in the sense commonly understood (See Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes). Or He might not be interested in intervening, for whatever reason.(See the Book of Job)

It's by no means obvious that everyone has free will. Many behavioral scientists, as well as Calvinists, would dispute that. But it is a possible counter to your argument, in explaining why God doesn't intervene.

To me, it's an educated bet. I'm satisfied that there's enough evidence to support a reasonable suspicion of a God, and much more to support the utility of believing in one. That's enough for me.

I'd say that's a false choice. I think all belief needs to be consistent with logic, the known facts, and the best understanding of our universe. That's why I'm not a biblical literalist. However, I believe that Christianity, as understood by Progressive Christians, does that. Science alone doesn't get us very far, since it wouldn't touch many important questions with a ten foot pole. Rigorous scientific proof is invaluable where attainable, but in the absence of it, we have to use less perfect tools: intuition, experience, and risk taking. In this area, I find the traditions of the great religions, as well as secular history and philosophy, valuable, if taken with a grain of salt.

It depends on what you mean by "rely". I go by Reagan's maxim: "Trust but verify". There's no substitute for reason and sound judgment in sorting truth from fiction, but if we wait until we have conclusive proof, we'll be waiting for all eternity.

 

No, what I was saying when I started this thread was that these are indicators that the christian god either did not exist, in which case the purveyors of the christian religion engaged in fraud, or it did exist, and either didn't care about what went, or endorsed it.

No, but then these people didn't do the things they did in the name of atheism either. I am not an atheist, by the way.

I would have to disagree. Some may believe this is so, but not all atheists have Marxist leanings, either. Mostly, they just have as much belief in the absence of any gods as christians and others have in the existence of their gods.

Not all christian, no, but still, that type of person continues to perpetuate attrocities in the name of christianity. Which is also related to my original post.

But forgiven by whom? Their god, or themselves? This is still a question relating to the original intent of this thread. How is it right that a segment of the population feels they have the right to do whatever they wish 6 days a week, go to church, repent, then start all over again on Monday?
I consider all these to be indicators of an absence of the authority the christian religion supports.

Yet supposedly inspired by god, based on the laws god handed down. Still relates to the questions I had.

So, the reader is supposed to ignore the direct commands of a god, and interpret it as they desire? Shouldn't something as important as the "blueprint for mankind" as I once heard it called, have a little more control asserted over it by the deity it purports to support?

I don't remember seeing an answer to the first statement, I will reread your post and see.
What I mean by the christian god is that entity the followers of christianity consider their deity. Yes, the one that was supposedly so active in the Bronze Age and others. Where is it now? Why has it allowed so much wrong to be done in its name without intervening? Granted, there is a lot of good that has been done under christianity also, but I posed the questions I did at the start of this thread hoping to gain some insights from those who might have some satisfactory answers. Why all of a sudden is there no more input from the "guy in charge"?

Please explain this last part in further detail. I understand a bit about Progressive Christians, but it sounds like you are saying you are unsure about the nature of your god?
This also relates to my questions as I am curious as to how the god christians purport to follow would allow so many branches to deviate from what was intended.
Thanks

 

Fraud is such a harsh word. I think the purveyors of Christianity sincerely believed in what they were saying. Admittedly, there would be some distortion as the stories passed from mouth to mouth to mouth, etc. And it seems that there was some pseudographia (forgery) along the line, for causes deemed worthy by the perpetrators.

They did them in the name of dialectical materialism, which incorporates atheism.

Far be it from me to suggest that atheists have Marxist leanings. Most that I know aren't into political ideologies. Some are objectivists--more like Paul Ryan than Marx.

Most Christians neither perpetrate nor condone atrocities. Most Quakers, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and the like are not warlike, homophobic, or any of the other nasty things you're concerned about. The media tend to focus on the assholes, who also tend to be prominent in certain political circles.

It's the "not perfect" part I was really referring to. Will you concede that? Christians who sin and expect forgiveness on Sunday are presumptuous.

Not as they "desire", but as is reasonable, in the context of logic, history, science, and good judgment. Again, the controlling deity you refer to isn't one Christians necessarily ascribe to. What we think (S)he should do might not jibe with what (S)he thinks, if (S)he thinks at all.

I'd guess that that deity was a figment of the human imagination, and was (is) thereby limited in what (S)he could do. My own concept of God is consistent with Deism, Pantheism, and Panentheism which preclude that kind of micromanagement.

Yes, I'm unsure about the nature of God. In fact, the Bible tells us it's beyond our human understanding. I hope I have some inkling, and place my bets on that basis. I can't speak for other Progressive Christians. Many I know follow Tillich's definition of God as "the Ground of Being."

 

I do understand what you are saying about the not perfect part. The other part is a little closer to some of the answers was interested in. But I won't dwell on that.

This is interesting. I am curious about your use of the "(S)he" term. Does this indicate that your beliefs allow room for a determination of the gender of your god?

Yet you still use the christian bible as a guide?

I see. I think this helps with my questions.

Thanks for staying with me here, this is very interesting.

 

Yes, I'm wide open in that area.

Yes, I go along with Marcus Borg that the Bible should be taken seriously, but not literally.

 

Thanks, Okiefreak, this has been very informative.

 

You're welcome. My pleasure.

 

I'm saying that in the evolution of Christian religion, certain memes have more survival value than others, whether or not they're right. Paul's main competition was the Jerusalem Church led by James-- Christian Jews who believed that Jesus was God's adopted son, but who also attended Temple and believed that the Laws of Moses were still binding on them, including circumcision and the dietary laws. To be Christians, they insisted that Gentiles become circumcised and observe kosher. This was not a big draw. Paul's decision to relax these rules was, since there were lots of Gentile Jewish wannabes who were already attending synagogue services around the Roman world. Later, Gnostic Christians emerged as competition, but their esoteric, elitist emphasis on "secret knowledge" restricted their mass appeal. And they rejected the Old Testament, which put them at a disadvantage in the Roman world where the antiquity of the Torah was respected. Whether or not Christianity would have survived without Paul is one of those iffy questions, but I think the answer is "probably not", since his exceptional drive, zeal and compelling arguments were instrumental in spreading the religion. Maybe Peter could have brought it off. Maybe somebody else might have come along to do the same things that Paul did. Who knows?

 

I can't go with the mainstream beliefs of modern Christianity. Jesus was great and I believe what he said. He didn't tell us to bash everyone or anyone with beliefs or lifestyles different from our own. Many Christian groups today will reject you utterly for refusing to bash the gays with them, or to deny them their civil rights, or to vote for anyone that might respect the rights of others. I believe it's unfair to blame Jesus for the hardness of heart and the mean and ungenerous spirit of these people.

 

I note you're from the Bible Belt, too, so we bear the same cross. There are other parts of the country where Christians are quite different, but low key, so they don't get media attention. Hang in there, brother!

 

Many people misunderstand the principle of forgiveness.

Primary christ discipline is to remain open for instruction as in thy kingdom come thy will be done. God being creator/creation is evident but sin, missing the sign, is incorrectly apprehending the causes, effects, and appearances of the world around us. Not apprehending the true nature of the world around us and our relationships to it and each other, our own effects are not predictable to the extent that we have genuine doubt about the potential goodness of men in general and often times ourselves in particular.

The fact that we misapprehend significantly the nature of the world causes us to make incorrect judgments against it and then we attempt to carry out those judgments. We believe we are right in our perceptions of right and wrong and think we are justified in our assessments. We say someone deserves mistreatment or must be made to pay compensation for the offenses perpetrated against goodness. This is the prevailing world view, a contest between good and bad or lawful and criminal.

Christ teaching is that only the fabric of creation itself is good, as in, exemplary of proper function, Why do you call me good, only god is good. The teaching goes on do not judge then, lest you be judged, for the measure you give is the measure you receive. Guilt is a false cause and makes it impossible to see genuine cause. Forgiveness works for the restoration of true vision as opposed to judgment which perpetuates the attraction of guilt.

The eye is the lamp of the body. If the eye is sound the whole body will be full of light. That is creation is free of fault, but if the light in you be darkness, then how great the darkness. The darkness now being great because the measure we give is the measure you receive.

Repent for the kingdom of god is at hand. Repentance and forgiveness are the same truth. In repentance we understand that we had mis-perceived the world making us appear as irresponsible in our actions. If we had misapprehended the world then we were not responding to real things at all.

Repentance then starts a reorientation of the pentacle of the senses to look only for the real world, that is as god created it. To apprehend then, energetic phenomena, as they are. Forgiveness, the laying down of judgment or arbitration for the sake of comprehension, is the ongoing practice of removing barriers to clear perception. The only misapprehension we cannot overcome except of our own choice, is to deny goodness, or the spirit of goodness or proper functioning. We cannot find what we refuse to look for.

Forgiveness from the outside seems to be a falsification of bills, but that does not reduce it's effectiveness of restoring proportion. What does reduce it's effectiveness is to with hold it from any circumstance.

No one needs god's forgiveness. God not mistaken in it's creations, seeing only what it had created. But our misapprehension which we mistake for , good judgment, makes a mess of our relations with each other and the environment.

 

I agree with you that Paul performed an important synchronicity in the survival of christianity in today's garble form. I would point out that the esoteric principles remain for those same gnostic initiates carried on the back of the political movement. It is my sense that the esoteric principles survive regardless the political/cultural treatments. Gnosticism was not an after effect as jesus had a core of followers who received special instruction, or keys to the kingdom.

Not everyone can live by these precepts.

Christ teaching itself was not meant for the well. It is not a compliment
to say it has mass appeal.

 

Can't rep you again, but very good explanation.:2thumbsup:

 

A distortion carried forward concerning forgiveness is the idea that we are forgiving some grave error. The foundation for this is found in the passage, we know them by their fruit. The idea that fruit may be good or bad, cannot be a measure of our judgment as that would contradictory to the teaching against such judgment. Do not judge by appearances, (good and bad), but rather use right judgment. Judge according to true function. It is obvious how the distortion plays out as the hypocritical behavior of christians as they first convict, ostensibly forgive, and then allow someone to re-offend because they had never really relinquished judgment to begin with.

It is like having a leaky municipal water systems that is springing leaks all the time an you try and patch the leaks. We punish bad behavior. This is sacrificing innocence for the sake of gaining redemption. The water system simply continues to leak. Instead we do not put the teaching of you know them by their fruit, into old wine skins as it's meaning is ruined. We change the entire water system. I desire mercy, not sacrifice. I desire love, not punishment or scapegoating.


But fruit is function, what is produced through the labor of living and growing. A mans fruit may reflect that his labors have been less than successful but his fruits are not an affront to god. A man can change his mind about his efforts or the veracity of his perceptions and so alter the trajectory of his labors to more effective pursuits