My Problems with Christianity

[Stile]

Originally posted by FredLC
Mojotronica:

Oh, I get why Xtianity demonizes sex, and I am quite conscient that in the core it ends up in demonizing "disobedience to God". Nonetheless, what I was responding to was not that key trait of Xtian thinking, but just the givenm suggestrion that you can qualify a "sexual disobedience" to God as something worse than a "non-sexual disobedience" to God, as it would change the focus of the reprobation from the disobeying itself to the sexual nature of it.

Also, that even if we admit that there is one kind of disobedience to God that can be considered worse than the others - what simply makes no sense - picking the sexual ones, as suggested, would be a very unwise criteria, considering how oftenly many things, that are far worse than the natural, beautiful and pleasurable act of sex, came to pass in our wicked earth.

Regards .

Like murder? Murder is not worse and here is why. If you murder someone and seek forgiveness what is to stop you from having a relationship with God. Take Manson-girl and mass murderer Susan Atkins for example. I wouldn't hold her up as the model Christian (she still has problems, but don't we all), but her conversion is very similar to many Christians throughout history. I'm sure God loves her, and if she is sincere I'm sure she is forgiven. (I'm not saying the state of California should forgive her.) So far there is no difference with sexual sin. They are just as likely to be loved, forgiven, and accepted, but they have to ask for it. That is why sexual sin is so dangerous and why it seperates a man from God. It is a continuing sin.

I completely agree with Jay. God wants us to enjoy life, to have pleasure, and be happy. Take alcohol as another example. Jesus drank wine. He even looked forward to drinking it again. We are to enjoy it. But alcoholics have to be very wary, lest the desire of alcohol become an obstacle to a relationship with God. I would say people with continuing sins are apt to rationalize their sin just like you suggested. "Sure, it's wrong but it's not as bad as what that person is doing. He forgave her and I'm not that bad." In the end, it's none of our business if God chooses to forgive someone. We have only our own relationship to be concerned about.

 

[Sims2789]

"Pride is a separate issue -- it's a sin, because it's self-aggrandizing. Of course there is a difference between having a healthy self-esteem and an inflated ego -- but basically Pride is a sin when it veers into Vanity or Hubris."

maybe the Bible means that being cocky is a sin, since being cocky is a combination of an inflated ego and arrogance. that would make sense, but pride being evil odesn't make any sense. after someone hits a homerun in baseball, they should feel proud of their accomplishment, but they shouldn't rub it into the pitchers face that they homered off him/her, and shouldn't go around saying that they'll hit a homerun every time.

 

[FredLC]

Stile:

By this logic, style, you state that the offense potentiality of the sin is unimportant as compared to it's continuous nature. I will always have an disagrement with you here, if that is in fact what you implied. Even if I were to accept a God, I still would understand that 1 million minor offenses - making sex, for example - would never measure to one single act of true evil and wickedness - like the lawless termination of a human life.

Anyway, if it's the repetiotion that is important, than there is still no excuse to highlight sex, as there are other "sins" that happens "continuously", as oftenly, if not more oftenly, than sex, such as pride, or glutony, or sloath.

Anyway, the demonization of the simple pleasures of life, and the setting of rules on how to make it, is, IMHO, a perfect display of how intrusive rfeligious philosophies are. I know you religious people ARE happy, but you have to fit your happiness in a preset designed for somebody else, and it is in that sense that I feel confortable to say that I am more free than you.

Nobodie's standards matter to me except my own.

Mojo:

As I said, I do get it, and the suggestion that sex is somehow "central" did not came from me. I am, in fact, exposing the wrongness of that idea from a logical standpoint, just like you are doing from a doctrinarie standpoint.

We are on the same side here.

Regards .

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The reason pleausure as an end in itself is corrupt is, IMO, because it is always short-lived and temporary.

If you're a hedonist, yes. Living for the short term is not always living for pleasure, which is the epicurean goal. Look, offer four philosophical characters a piece of chocolate.

An ascetic [perhaps a Buddhist?] would refuse the chocolate, saying that he does not want to tether his consciousness to worldly goods.

A theist [a Christian] would take the chocolate, but while chewing it would remind you that the pleasure he gets out of it is ephemeral nothingness compared to the pleasure he will soon enjoy in the Kgdm. of God.

An epicurean [that would be me] would take the chocolate and enjoy it for its own sake, realizing that he should maximize his pleasurable experiences during his "short-lived and temporary" existence. However, he wouldn't take enough chocolate to become obese, diabetic, etc. in those cases potential pain outweighs present pleasure. Everything in moderation Pleasure is good, senseless pleasure without regard to possible consequences is ALWAYS bad.

A hedonist [an inhabitant of Sodom] would take all the chocolate, without thought for the future, but only for maximizing his present pleasure.

In other words, my particular bone to pick with Christianity is that since they are theists, and worse/better yet, theists who believe in an afterlife, the focus is no longer on humanity as means and end in himself, and instead on God as Savior of mankind from himself. Which is an essentially self-flagellating ideology; hence the constant sense of almost masochistc guilt which I have observed in quite a few Christians [normally the ones that take their theology very seriously].

So... because Christians view the human condition as essentially hopeless, they view pleasure of any sort as at best a distraction and at worst a fatal misstep from the path that will lead them to their only chance at "salvation", ie, escape from said doomed human nature. I noted before in another thread that Heaven has no sex in it. Nor does there seem to be much practice of, or use for, the intellect, since the soul is "suffused with the light of God", and so on. Heaven is really a happy land where humans can escape from the dilemma of Sartrean choice. Because they defer that dilemma while on Earth, people mentally wander without fixed and self-created identities, and they are filled with guilt over their inaction and over their prioritization [the prospect of death before the actuality of life before the possibility of pleasure, which is essentially a perversion of human nature]. Heaven seems to be, now that I think about it, the perfect metaphysical answers to these problems. It strips the body of the possibility for what Christians call "earthly temptations", and it solves the dilemma of self-created identity by dissolving all saved Christendom into one massive collective singing Hosanna. On Earth, too, Christianity tends to solve the two metaphysical problems with "a sense of community" [in which learning is derived from at worst sermons and litanies and at best anecdotes and tales] and with a slight disdain [not contempt or scorn usually, but perhaps pity and a little condescension] in dealing with "fallen mankind", discarding out of hand the prospect of man, as I said, as a self-creating, self-perpetuating entity.

In a nutshell, I'm a humanist so I find the focus of Christianity [on God, not man] as a vitiating force on humanity in the present, which is all I think exists.

[my apologies for the long post ]

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
Why is sex singled-out for special condemnation amongst all the other sins? I think it's a human bias - an over-reaction that's been handed down generation after generation.

Its not, though it is singled out as the most destructive to harmonious relations. Simple observation tells us that. The sex drive is the strongest of all drives after hunger, and therefore also the most difficult to deal with properly. However the sin that is most singled out is not sexual at all. Gossip is.

Originally posted by Mojotronica
Some churches have softened their rheotoric against sexual practices -- some even perform gay marriages, for example... So any consensual adult sexual practice CAN be reconciled with Christianity.

NO. Very much not the case. One reason that sexual misconduct is spoken about so often is that it is so common. Adultery is consentual, yet no possible reading of the text will condone it. At the very least the Bible wants sexual intimacy treated with respect to the local values and discretion. Even if you allow that the common practices of the time are acceptabl;e, you must also allow that the clear prohibitions of the time are prohibited as well.

Originally posted by Mojotronica
There is a lot of disagrement about it, but I think that it's more important to get the Bible's message of love and harmony than it is to nitpick about each other's sexual practices -- and I think that is the direction that modern religions should head in if they want to remain relevant to most people's lives.

As to nitpicking, I agree with you. To often we try yo impose our sexual preferences on another, to the point that some have declared any but the simplest form of sexual intimacy abhorant. Wrongly so.

Originally posted by luiz
Jay, I think Jesus is making a case against adultery and sexual immorality, I don't believe he condemned sex outside marriage(there's a difference between that and adultery)

If you refer to fornication, you may be right, by that word. But also note that he does speak of sexual immorality, which would have specific regard to the mores of his audience. Then, like now, fornication by boys was winked at. It was considered wrong, but only the father of the girl would object strongly. Likewise prostitution. However, the very direct comments about coveting also have relevence. He is clearly covering the entire range of propriety. To claim he does not mean to condemn fornication is twisting the statement out of shape.

PP, as something of an epicure myself, I think that we are miscommunicating subtly. To enjoy food, for example, is not wrong. Far from it. It was put here in part for our enjoyment. The fault is in the excess, where appreciation leads to gluttony, or where appreciation of wine leads to alcoholism. I grant you that it is not always easy tosee the distinction.

J

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by sims2789
maybe the Bible means that being cocky is a sin, since being cocky is a combination of an inflated ego and arrogance. that would make sense, but pride being evil odesn't make any sense. after someone hits a homerun in baseball, they should feel proud of their accomplishment, but they shouldn't rub it into the pitchers face that they homered off him/her, and shouldn't go around saying that they'll hit a homerun every time.

There are two different meanings for pride. There is: "I am proud of what I did. It makes me happy." and there is "I am proud of what I did. It makes me better than the other person." The second one is where sin comes in. And the reason pride is such a dangerous sin is that it is very, very easy to move from the first to the second, and once you are firmly lost in the second, you can spiral out of control.

@ Pontiuth: But I can see how you can combine the second and third. You can eat the chocolate and say, "Wow, that was very good. I enjoyed that chocolate. But I must remember that there are things greater than chocolate, and I must strive for them - while stopping for some chocolate on the way, of course." In fact I think experiencing pleasure is necessary for a Christian so they can remember what it is they are striving for in the first place.

Of course you are right; many Christians are misled and hate themselves for eating the chocolate, combining the worst of the Buddhist aspect while still indulging in the chocolate. They become like half-hearted Buddhists who fail time and time again and only get angrier because of it...

A true Christian (IMO) would realize that they should enjoy their time on earth while it is here, but recognize that it will not last long so they shouldn't get used to it. They savor life and enjoy it WHILE looking foward to the future.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by cgannon64


and there is "I am proud of what I did. It makes me better than the other person."

So if I say I'm better than a baby-eating satanic goat-gut smothering fruitloop, is that a sin?

 

[Stile]

Originally posted by FredLC
Stile:

By this logic, style, you state that the offense potentiality of the sin is unimportant as compared to it's continuous nature. I will always have an disagrement with you here, if that is in fact what you implied. Even if I were to accept a God, I still would understand that 1 million minor offenses - making sex, for example - would never measure to one single act of true evil and wickedness - like the lawless termination of a human life.

Anyway, if it's the repetiotion that is important, than there is still no excuse to highlight sex, as there are other "sins" that happens "continuously", as oftenly, if not more oftenly, than sex, such as pride, or glutony, or sloath.

Anyway, the demonization of the simple pleasures of life, and the setting of rules on how to make it, is, IMHO, a perfect display of how intrusive rfeligious philosophies are. I know you religious people ARE happy, but you have to fit your happiness in a preset designed for somebody else, and it is in that sense that I feel confortable to say that I am more free than you.

Nobodie's standards matter to me except my own.

FredLC: I think you basically understand what I was trying to imply. As a Christian, there is only one unpardonable sin and that is unbelief (referred to as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the Bible). Any other act can be forgiven no matter how horrible. Redemption is a huge part of the New Testament with the example of the conversion of Paul. The repetition does not make it worse, such that 10 1st level sins equal one 10th level sin or anything like that. I think pride, glutony, and sloth, as examples you provided, are equally harmful in the lives of Christians. They are listed in the Bible often alongside sexual sin. Sex as more powerful can be more damaging, but I don't mean to focus on it; the thread seems to focus on it. A life focused on money, sex, alcohol, or chocolate is a life not focused on the glory of God (the glory of God does include pleasure). Man can not serve two masters.

I guess you would be aware that the philosophy you support is also in the Bible. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die. It makes perfect sense for someone who is not a Christian. That doesn't make you more free than me. I am perfectly free to choose that lifestyle, and I choose Jesus instead.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by newfangle
So if I say I'm better than a baby-eating satanic goat-gut smothering fruitloop, is that a sin?

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while you yourself don’t see the beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:42

J

 

[Speedo]

The biggest mistake the Christians ever made was to reject the ideas of the Greek philosophers [the Stoics not so much, but the Epicureans particulary]. Already on this thread we've been talking about sex and sin - which is a big Christian topic, right? And the Christian line on all this is that "meaningless pleasure is sinful", which is a non sequitur right there - anyone care to explain it to me? - and they also say that sex should take place inside of marriage as a guarantee that the people involved love each other. Well that's like saying that you can't serve your country well until you've become a citizen of it. Lafayette, anyone? Most Christians I've talked to see everything outside of their church as lawless Sodom [this must be a side effect of the "world is fallen" dogma - saved-or-condemned dichotomy and all that]. When Greece fell to Jesus we lost the middle ground between the eremites and hedonists. IMHO the biggest flaw with Christianity is not that it "worships death" or any such deliberately misinterpreted BS intended to offend or troll Christians [], it's that Christianity is an essentially ascetic religion which spends most of its effort futilely trying to get humans to ESCAPE human nature. Two thousand years of application has found us no closer to the Christian ideal.

So Christianity should change to appeal to the masses? Well, that statement just shows complete ignorance of some of the basic tenets of it.

 

[CenturionV]

Two thousand years of application has found us no closer to the Christian ideal.

Really? So your saying that nothing has gotten any better due to christianity in the world for 2000 years? if we even made the slightest impact we have been succesful, we see the big picture it does not matter if it takes us 2000 years or 200,000 we will continue to work towards worldwide reformation and conversion. You see, thats why Christianity is the only truly unstoppable force, we dont give up hard or easy, long time or short, small group or entire nations we may lose ground or gain, live or die, but we never surrender EVER.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by CenturionV
You see, thats why Christianity is the only truly unstoppable force, we dont give up hard or easy, long time or short, small group or entire nations we may lose ground or gain, live or die, but we never surrender EVER.

You have a way too good image of yourself. I call that PRIDE

 

[CenturionV]

You have a way too good image of yourself. I call that PRIDE

Hey I did not say that was ME that would be stupid and against the christian spirit, we are nothing without christs help, thats the whole point behind WHY christianity has never died out, and never gone away, not because of the strength of its people, but because of the strength of its leader. I'm proud to be one of christs people yes, but not because I did anything to get/deserve it.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Speedo


So Christianity should change to appeal to the masses? Well, that statement just shows complete ignorance of some of the basic tenets of it.

Christmas and Easter ring a bell about sellouts?

 

[Speedo]

Christmas and Easter ring a bell about sellouts?

The holidays themselves - even Santa Claus - have backings in Christianity. Just because they were grabbed and overcommercialized does not mean that believers have stopped seeing the true meaning behind them.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by CenturionV
Hey I did not say that was ME that would be stupid and against the christian spirit, we are nothing without christs help, thats the whole point behind WHY christianity has never died out, and never gone away, not because of the strength of its people, but because of the strength of its leader. I'm proud to be one of christs people yes, but not because I did anything to get/deserve it.

Well, it's not died out, but it's not living very well. I'm afraid though that this will stirr up some unwanted fundamentalism (which incidentally, will lead further to it's doom)

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by CenturionV
we are nothing without christs help, thats the whole point behind

Correction, YOU are nothing without Christ's help. Many of us try to achieve greatness without being horsewhipped by a cloud-dwelling bloke.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Really? So your saying that nothing has gotten any better due to christianity in the world for 2000 years?

Plenty of Christians have helped make the world a better place, but usually despite, not because of, their religion.

 

[bigfatron]

Originally posted by Stile

FredLC: I think you basically understand what I was trying to imply. As a Christian, there is only one unpardonable sin and that is unbelief (referred to as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the Bible). Any other act can be forgiven no matter how horrible.

Have you never stopped to think WHY this is? Why is a 'sin' which causes no-one any harm the one unforgiveable sin? This is utterly bizarre.

However, if, for a moment, you consider the possibility that the church and its gospel is a HUMAN construct (note this doesn't preclude Jesus being the son of God, just that the message He brought may have been distorted), then this makes total sense.

Any organisation that seeks absolute power and control must be able to divide humanity into 'in' and 'out', the sheep and the goats, the saved and the fallen. Some do it racially, some politically, some by religion.

If any rules are established that can never be overturned then some people are forever forbidden from membership, from inclusion - that might satisfy a racially-based organisation but is the last thing desired by a construct that seeks universal control.

Thus, by neccesity any act of evil can be forgiven, normally if the right amount of money is forthcoming together with a plea for admission - such 'conversions' serve only to strengthen the organisation by demonstrating its power and influence.

The only true danger is in people simply being unwilling to participate - thus the unforgiveable 'sin' of disbelief. If you fail to accept the truth of the teachings of the church - its propaganda - then you are outside its pale and subject to sanction. No amount of good deeds can compensate for your disbelief.

There is no difference in principle between this statement and that of racists asserting that any white is always of greater value than every black, or Communists/Nazis defending their own regardless of their deeds whilst condemning those outside the party.

The whole purpose of the Christian doctrine, like most other religions, is to separate the world into 'them' and 'us' - if you are 'in' you must toe the line but can be forgiven anything, if you are 'out' then nothing can save you.

I fail to see any morality in this critical aspect of doctrine; its essence is division, discrimination, coercion. It is simply playground gang culture writ very large and very nasty. I can and could never subscribe to any religion which has this poisonous attitude at its core.

 

[Speedo]

Disbelief is not an unforgivable sin. If so, we're all SOL. At one time or another through life everyone will have a time when they don't believe (before being saved). If there is any unforgivable sin, it is (IIRC) blasphemy.