Author Topic: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity  (Read 2449 times)

Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« on: July 04, 2020, 05:58:54 PM »
The very idea that one can transfer responsibility for transgressions because of a human sacrifice is repugnant. The idea that we are broken via original sin over an apple is just as tragic. The notion that faith is the trait we are to be judged on to determine our place for eternity is idiotic. The concept that you must drink the savior's blood and eat his flesh is barbaric. The fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.

Your thoughts on these concepts?

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2020, 06:31:07 PM »
agreed

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2020, 06:35:53 PM »
The very idea that one can transfer responsibility for transgressions because of a human sacrifice is repugnant. The idea that we are broken via original sin over an apple is just as tragic. The notion that faith is the trait we are to be judged on to determine our place for eternity is idiotic. The concept that you must drink the savior's blood and eat his flesh is barbaric. The fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.

Your thoughts on these concepts?

All, total and complete bullshit!  And that is only scratching the surface of what is just plain idiotic about religion(s).
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Sal1981

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2020, 07:35:34 PM »
Christianity is basically an effort to avoid responsibility for your actions and thoughts. That's the whole grift of the human sacrifice. This childish thinking is even praised and lauded in the Bible.

The whole concept of sin is basically judging people on thoughts "crimes", when only actions have a visible impact in the world.

Faith is a watered down replacement for thinking and reasoning, when they were sufficient in the first place. Faith is when you decide to skip thinking altogether.

Communion is retarded. If you think about it for longer than a minute you realize how folly a replacement cracker and some wine is supposed to be a (symbolic) representation of a human sacrifice for remembering someone.

That a leader, or anyone for that matter, thinks the creator of the universe speaks to them is the absolute height of hubris and applied schizophrenia.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2020, 10:39:33 PM »
To ancient people, there was individual and collective guilt.  And this guilt was to individuals and to the collective.  And then again, there was religious guilt (which is a transcendental version of individual/collective guilt to the collective).  Very few ancient people were secular or atheist or scientific, they were poetic and romantic in nature.  Jewish law is a subset of Near Eastern law from Babylon, Egypt and Canaan.  Violation of ritual brings bad magic on the individual and the community both.

So the Torah, tries to address these questions of guilt .. as expanded on by "tradition" aka Talmud ...

1. Individual guilt to an individual - you need to apologize and make recompense
2. Individual guilt to the collective (Jewish tribe typically) - you need to apologize and make recompense
3. Collective guilt to the individual - not much remarked upon, individual rights weren't recognized at that time
4. Collective guilt to the collective (Jewish tribe typically) - peace making between groups, with apology and recompense (usually mutual)
5. Individual guilt to the transcendent (see #2 but recompense is different)
6. Collective guilt to the transcendent (see #4 but recompense is different)

The NT has to be seen in the context of the OT, plus contemporary culture of 2000 years ago.  It makes no sense to Gentiles or to moderns of course!

1. Make recompense by Lex Talonis ... an eye for an eye, per the law code of Hammurabi of Babylon (1200 years before the Bible was first written).  This was an improvement on vendetta.
2. Make recompense by physical punishment ... more general than #1.
3. Make recompense by execution ... only in limited cases.
4. Make recompense by animal sacrifice ... different kinds for different purposes ... from parched grain to a bull

In post-Biblical times, rabbis made the procedural law so tight, given that the only evidence was usually one person's word against another (see Solomon vs the two contending mothers).  There had to be religious sanction specifically against malicious accusation and false witness.  There was no lie detector (and those don't work with sociopaths anyway).  It was very hard to secure a capital punishment (and this was banned when Judah was a Greek/Roman colony).  Often the physical punishments (reciprocal or otherwise) was commuted to a fine.

So what about the animal sacrifices?  These were done in all early culture in a religious fashion.  Same as with Native Americans.  There was a taboo against taking an animal life (in paganism in particular) because it was on offense against the god/goddess who was in charge of that part of nature.  Artemis/Diana was an extreme bitch you didn't want to offend.  Yahweh was a bastard regarding any shedding of blood, human or animal.  You may not shed blood except under ritual conditions (kosher or halal butchers).  You must treat meat so as to remove the blood.  No blood pudding, sorry Brits.  Originally these animal sacrifices would be done by the father of the family (aka Abraham).  Later this was partially centralized in Shiloh (Judges), Jerusalem (Judah), Bethel and Dan (Israel).  The sacrifice of animals etc at a cult center, was the way that Levites/Kohanim got fed.  They were not allowed any land (agriculture).  The peculiar tribal constitution of Israel/Judah was the reason why.  Probably originally made up of three groups ... Levites/Kohanim from Egypt, first class citizens from Midian, and second class citizens (forced labor) from Canaanites.  The idea of one law for all people of all classes was not invented yet.

So what can you do if you commit a crime and there is no way to apologize or provide compensation?  Give it to G-d.  So what can you do if you commit a sin (theological crime) ... who do you apologize to or to whom do you compensate?  The religious ritual system provided for that, one that was increasingly centered in Jerusalem (or Mt Gerezim for the Samaritans).  Also there was tithing for Diaspora Jews/Samaritans.  This was the system in place 2000 years ago.  Pagan religion was similar, just polytheistic.  From the Jewish POV, the pagan religion was less concerned with morality, more concerned with hurting your enemies and helping yourself or your friends.  There is some justification to this anti-pagan view.

So how do you apologize and compensate for a community sin against G-d?  The High Priest once a year, goes into the Holy of Holies, and takes the collective sin of the Jewish people upon himself (all that sin not otherwise apologized for or compensated).  In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is described as a transcendental High Priest.  He is immortal, and he does this apology and compensation on the Cross (Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do).  Why death on a cross?  Because he is the Paschal Lamb.  The Paschal Lamb is a special sacrifice for Passover, the evening before the start of the Exodus.  But the Exodus isn't from Egypt to Canaan, but from Earth to Heaven.

It all makes sense within its own culture, though Rabbinic culture isn't the same as Hellenistic Jewish/Gentile culture (taking Pauline theology as the standard).

Y'all demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, much like a European colonist looking down their nose at the primitives you are about to colonize.  Or in this case, anti-Semites looking to colonize Jews and other monotheists.  Reminds me of the Soviet Union behavior in Africa before, or the behavior of Red China in Africa today.

Do I accept this theology?  No I don't.  I consider justice to be BS.  There is no need to apologize to anyone, or to provide compensation for anyone.  And if there is nothing sacred, then that angle is unnecessary also.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2020, 10:54:36 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2020, 08:02:55 AM »
I can appreciate how limiting oral tradition is. Illiteracy renders a person vulnerable to nonsense. Not an excuse anymore. Yet magical thinking all around us, yearning for a 2000 year late rapture like a five year old waiting for jolly old St Nick. Grown men with grey hair yammering about virgin births and talking snakes. Spewing hate and judgement on other people. These fools would be purely entertaining if they were not so malicious. I live and let live and pick my associations carefully. Life is too short to suffer believers with that 1000 yard stare.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2020, 08:50:48 AM »
I can appreciate how limiting oral tradition is. Illiteracy renders a person vulnerable to nonsense. Not an excuse anymore. Yet magical thinking all around us, yearning for a 2000 year late rapture like a five year old waiting for jolly old St Nick. Grown men with grey hair yammering about virgin births and talking snakes. Spewing hate and judgement on other people. These fools would be purely entertaining if they were not so malicious. I live and let live and pick my associations carefully. Life is too short to suffer believers with that 1000 yard stare.

Correct in dealing with modern Gentiles.  They are either political reptiles like Alcibiades or mumbling pagan priests.  Educated clergy aren't like this.  Of course one can object, if one is a Vulcan, to poetic/romantic articulation.  Some must have it numerically, in the old time religion of Pythagoras.

Modernity is based on the methods of Sir Francis Bacon, who conceived of the New World as the New Atlantis, based on empirical science (not all that super French rationalism of Descartes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

Please note Idols of the Mind/Cognitive Bias.

Idols of the Tribe = Identity politics
Idols of the Cave = Ideology
Idols of the Market = Predatory capitalism
Idols of the Theatre = Main stream media

America is the New Atlantis, but it isn't as fun as Sir Francis Bacon imagined.  Bacon actually died from a cold he got while trying to invent the refrigerator.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 09:19:35 AM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2020, 12:37:30 PM »
All the sacrificing of your best sheep or first born son is just to prove to the others that you are just as 'all in' (and idiotic) as they are. Rooting out skeptics is important so that they do not enjoy any group benefits such as the raping and pillaging of the enemy sect. Eventually this led to indulgences, aka a bribes to stay in the good graces.

I would guess about 90% of the bible boils down to separating the wheat from the chafe. From the torture of Job to the traitor apostle. So witches and gays, Jews and Muslims and the protestant to the catholic have all been separated out and persecuted under the pretense of 'holiness'.

And all because of the assumption that a mind can exist without a brain.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2020, 03:10:00 PM »
All the sacrificing of your best sheep or first born son is just to prove to the others that you are just as 'all in' (and idiotic) as they are. Rooting out skeptics is important so that they do not enjoy any group benefits such as the raping and pillaging of the enemy sect. Eventually this led to indulgences, aka a bribes to stay in the good graces.

I would guess about 90% of the bible boils down to separating the wheat from the chafe. From the torture of Job to the traitor apostle. So witches and gays, Jews and Muslims and the protestant to the catholic have all been separated out and persecuted under the pretense of 'holiness'.

And all because of the assumption that a mind can exist without a brain.


One sacrifices a sheep, because one needs meat more than wool.  For Bedouin they run sheep and goats together, because they behave better as a group that way.  The children are assigned this job (hence the analogy to the value of children by Jesus).  And when they are back at camp, the sheep and goats are separated.  Usually the goats get eaten (they don't provide wool).  Hence the analogy to the fate of the righteous and unrighteous.  In sacred culture there is no butchery of an animal, it is always a religious ritual, a sacrifice.

Of course in many cultures (see Aztecs) there is a notion of human sacrifice.  We practice this also, with criminals, with police, with soldiers, with protestors.  People die as consequence of their situation, that they get into because of their actions.  For Aztecs, they believed that the Sun wouldn't come up each morning, that the World would end, unless they sacrificed a fellow human being.  In WW II, millions of lives were sacrificed, because States believed that their very existence was threatened.  This was voluntarily religious, that is why there are military chaplains.  Of course vegetarians, pacifists or atheists don't get this.

Or are you bringing to notice, that individuals and groups are corrupt?  Happens in any system.  The only way to avoid human corruption, is to extinguish the human race (see Noah).
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 03:26:49 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2020, 03:40:53 PM »
One sacrifices a sheep, because one needs meat more than wool.
 
I disagree. You are giving up your family's best sheep to the whole congregation. Just the same type of proving loyalty and trust as sacrificing a bit of your child's genitals. And then there is this whole fake family association. Everyone (stranger or not) is a brother, a sister (nuns, LOL), a father (priest) to really rope you in. The church is called a 'house'. No it isn't. It is empty every night. Children don't need to plead or make sacrifice to a good father. It gives me chills.

Must congregate regularly to administer guilt to the innocents about nothing. It's like a spy ring/competition to be the most whatever. Many human associations besides religion can be creepy and disastrous, yes. But no one serves the kool-aide with a smile like religion.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2020, 04:03:42 PM »
You can say that Judaism aka Old Testament isn't real, because that was ancient times, so who knows what anybody actually did.  But I don't think any of those people were thinking like a SJW.  Certainly people living traditionally today (aka Bedouin) aren't SJW.

You seem to be so individual, that extended family/clan/tribe is an incomprehensible concept.  That isn't true with my Native American neighbors.  You combined a lot of different ideas though, that applied to some groups at some times.  Of course every society is sensitive to the sociopaths among them, or toward outsiders. 

Originally synagogues were men's clubs for business (which was sacred action too).  Churches were in people's homes, because it was illegal to form any association that wasn't approved by the Roman authorities (including local hoodlums).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Sal1981

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2020, 05:58:15 PM »
One sacrifices a sheep, because one needs meat more than wool.  For Bedouin they run sheep and goats together, because they behave better as a group that way.  The children are assigned this job (hence the analogy to the value of children by Jesus).  And when they are back at camp, the sheep and goats are separated.  Usually the goats get eaten (they don't provide wool).  Hence the analogy to the fate of the righteous and unrighteous.  In sacred culture there is no butchery of an animal, it is always a religious ritual, a sacrifice.
It is then, also, used as a means to an end in religious doctrine.

It is not surprising that in NT the doctrine of human sacrifice isn't condemned given their equivocation of the two.


Of course in many cultures (see Aztecs) there is a notion of human sacrifice.  We practice this also, with criminals, with police, with soldiers, with protestors.  People die as consequence of their situation, that they get into because of their actions.  For Aztecs, they believed that the Sun wouldn't come up each morning, that the World would end, unless they sacrificed a fellow human being.  In WW II, millions of lives were sacrificed, because States believed that their very existence was threatened.  This was voluntarily religious, that is why there are military chaplains.  Of course vegetarians, pacifists or atheists don't get this.
In the former it was due to faith, the latter has to do with political convictions of the importance of the state.


Or are you bringing to notice, that individuals and groups are corrupt?  Happens in any system.  The only way to avoid human corruption, is to extinguish the human race (see Noah).
That's quite a broad brush.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2020, 06:27:05 PM »
It is then, also, used as a means to an end in religious doctrine.

It is not surprising that in NT the doctrine of human sacrifice isn't condemned given their equivocation of the two.

In the former it was due to faith, the latter has to do with political convictions of the importance of the state.

That's quite a broad brush.

Religious people, don't consider religion to be indoctrination. They consider secularism etc to be indoctrination.  Particularly if it has a political angle to it.

I don't condemn human sacrifice (in the modern sense).  I am not an Aztec.  But I do approve of Americans fighting for their country, if necessary, and that entails injury and death (as well as injury and death of their opponents).  For many, this is a religious act, because they happen to be religious.  For Soviets in WW II or Afghanistan, they were dying for Socialism (an ideology not a theology).  Human sacrifice either way.  The Afghans certainly were dying for their religion, not for secularism.  A nationalist speech, not a religious speech, because General Patton was a pretty profane guy.



Slavery isn't condemned in the NT, or the invasion of reptilian shape shifters either ;-)  What was recommended 2000 years ago, is for Jewish communities to purchase Jewish slaves, and manumit them.  The god-fearers in Jewish synagogues were Gentile former slaves who had been manumitted by their Jewish masters.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline SGOS

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2020, 08:11:10 AM »
It's surprising that such a violent book about a cruel and vengeful god should be the basis of a religion.  Well, not surprising.  Look at Islam.  More surprising is that Christians turn Biblical atrocities into virtue, and act as if the Bible is all about love, which it is most definitely not.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2020, 09:12:16 AM »
It's surprising that such a violent book about a cruel and vengeful god should be the basis of a religion.  Well, not surprising.  Look at Islam.  More surprising is that Christians turn Biblical atrocities into virtue, and act as if the Bible is all about love, which it is most definitely not.

If you don't support violence, then you will bend the knee to your drug pusher?

You want a religion of love?  Does that include reefers?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.