[Scape]

[Guy_Fawkes]

[Guy_Fawkes]

Irrational and unquestioned belief in anything is bad. For some reason questioning ones beliefs has been though of as disrespect. I think HL Mencken said it best

Quote:

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

[andyt]

I would say Albert Schweitzer, say, was a force for good. He was inspired by his beliefs. The Union Gospel Mission here in Vancouver does a lot of good, including allowing people to sleep in it's church. Lots of examples like that around. I don't think you can say Christianity is only a force for good or evil. Like all human enterprises, it's a mixed bag. I don't think there are any groups of people out there who are only forces for good, or evil. Maybe Schweitzer had his nasty side as well.

[Unsound]

andyt wrote:

I would say Albert Schweitzer, say, was a force for good. He was inspired by his beliefs. The Union Gospel Mission here in Vancouver does a lot of good, including allowing people to sleep in it's church. Lots of examples like that around. I don't think you can say Christianity is only a force for good or evil. Like all human enterprises, it's a mixed bag. I don't think there are any groups of people out there who are only forces for good, or evil. Maybe Schweitzer had his nasty side as well.

Way to go. 3 posts in and you've pretty much ended the discussion.

[Scape]

Cliff notes version

[Guy_Fawkes]

andyt wrote:

I would say Albert Schweitzer, say, was a force for good. He was inspired by his beliefs. The Union Gospel Mission here in Vancouver does a lot of good, including allowing people to sleep in it's church. Lots of examples like that around. I don't think you can say Christianity is only a force for good or evil. Like all human enterprises, it's a mixed bag. I don't think there are any groups of people out there who are only forces for good, or evil. Maybe Schweitzer had his nasty side as well.

Thats true, and it all depends on what people consider 'good'. Most view Mother Teresa as the poster child for a force of good, but if you look at her practices in India I would call them anything but good.

[Scape]

andyt wrote:

I would say Albert Schweitzer, say, was a force for good. He was inspired by his beliefs. The Union Gospel Mission here in Vancouver does a lot of good, including allowing people to sleep in it's church.

Did he need the church to know how to be a moral person? Is it possible that he could have done all of that without the church?

andyt wrote:

I don't think you can say Christianity is only a force for good or evil. Like all human enterprises, it's a mixed bag. I don't think there are any groups of people out there who are only forces for good, or evil. Maybe Schweitzer had his nasty side as well.

If he did have an evil side but then he gave his life to God then he has a get out of hell free card. Isn't that amoral?

[ShepherdsDog]

I'd have to say that Christianity was well intentioned when it came about. The Cultural Revolution and the Great leap Forward were also well intentioned ideas of the Chinese communists. However, when organizations and movements become too large, they run the risk of being co opted by individuals that aren't so well intentioned. These persons are attracted by the power rather than the mission....and then again there are some twisted individuals who think they are doing good, but end up causing great carnage and suffering. Communism can be viewed in much the same light as Christianity. It works well on the small unstructured scale when all its members are willing participants, with an equal say.

We can find plenty of well meaning, moral folk interested in the welfare of their fellow man in both movements even today, in fact i would say the majority of both groups are in this classification....it's the ones holding the reins that are dangerous.

[andyt]

Scape wrote:

Did he need the church to know how to be a moral person? Is it possible that he could have done all of that without the church?

He didn't do it with the church, as far as I know. But he was inspired to do it based on his beliefs, which were formed by Christianity. Christianity if one form of moral code in the world - he happened to be exposed to it which made him the person he was.

Scape wrote:

andyt wrote:

I don't think you can say Christianity is only a force for good or evil. Like all human enterprises, it's a mixed bag. I don't think there are any groups of people out there who are only forces for good, or evil. Maybe Schweitzer had his nasty side as well.

If he did have an evil side but then he gave his life to God then he has a get out of hell free card. Isn't that amoral?

We all have good and evil within us. I'm not sure what you mean by amoral - it means not caring about right or wrong. I think he cared. If you're questioning Christian doctrine, you're arguing with the wrong person. I also delight in bringing up the logical fallacies of religions. But even from a secular perspective, if somebody does evil, but then repents and spends the rest of his life doing good to make up for it, isn't that a great thing and deserving or our respect and forgiveness?

[Scape]

andyt wrote:

Christianity if one form of moral code in the world - he happened to be exposed to it which made him the person he was.

There was a time before he was a part of the church and at that point in his life he made a decision to join the faith. My question to you is: if he was he a moral person beforehand then why would he need the church to tell him to do what he was already doing? In what way does the church make for moral behavior if we already possess it? If he was an amoral person then joining the church to do good works doesn't absolve him of his previous transgressions.

If he was an amoral person who wanted to mend his ways and repent he should be doing so of his own accord and not in the name of the church as a member of the cloth. They should not get credit for that which he has the responsibility to own up to for those are his actions not the churches.

Also, what of those whose moral code corrupts while as a part of the faith? The churches record on pedophilia is that of a laughing stock. The churches reaction has been to deny, defer, delay and reassign rather then to come clean on this front. They have to be shamed into doing the moral thing and allow justice to prevail. Very strange moral example if you ask me.

andyt wrote:

We all have good and evil within us. I'm not sure what you mean by amoral - it means not caring about right or wrong. I think he cared. If you're questioning Christian doctrine, you're arguing with the wrong person. I also delight in bringing up the logical fallacies of religions. But even from a secular perspective, if somebody does evil, but then repents and spends the rest of his life doing good to make up for it, isn't that a great thing and deserving or our respect and forgiveness?

No. If you commit a crime then you do the time. You don't have an epiphany and suddenly grow a spine after the fact. You know NOT to steal, murder and rape and if you do and you feel bad afterward so what? Charlie Manson could cry a river and apply to become a priest, I still think he's a psychopath for what has been done and if the church decided to let him then they are enabling evil.

You don't need the church to know psychopathic behavior is not only not in your own best interest but in the best interest of society at large. If your house is burning you know the fire department will be summoned because not only will it damage you but those around you. You didn't need to pray to a higher power to summon them.

Accidents do happen and we also posses without the church the power to forgive. However, an accident means that there was no intent to do an amoral act. We ask for pardon, pay our fines as required and move along. We didn't need a church to say sorry. Without traffic cops we can drive and not run over each other. The Church is not a cop or judge that is required to be human.

[andyt]

Scape wrote:

andyt wrote:

Christianity if one form of moral code in the world - he happened to be exposed to it which made him the person he was.

There was a time before he was a part of the church and at that point in his life he made a decision to join the faith. My question to you is: if he was he a moral person beforehand then why would he need the church to tell him to do what he was already doing? In what way does the church make for moral behavior if we already possess it? If he was an amoral person then joining the church to do good works doesn't absolve him of his previous transgressions.

If he was an amoral person who wanted to mend his ways and repent he should be doing so of his own accord and not in the name of the church as a member of the cloth. They should not get credit for that which he has the responsibility to own up to for those are his actions not the churches.

Also, what of those whose moral code corrupts while as a part of the faith? The churches record on pedophilia is that of a laughing stock. The churches reaction has been to deny, defer, delay and reassign rather then to come clean on this front. They have to be shamed into doing the moral thing and allow justice to prevail. Very strange moral example if you ask me.

andyt wrote:

We all have good and evil within us. I'm not sure what you mean by amoral - it means not caring about right or wrong. I think he cared. If you're questioning Christian doctrine, you're arguing with the wrong person. I also delight in bringing up the logical fallacies of religions. But even from a secular perspective, if somebody does evil, but then repents and spends the rest of his life doing good to make up for it, isn't that a great thing and deserving or our respect and forgiveness?

No. If you commit a crime then you do the time. You don't have an epiphany and suddenly grow a spine after the fact. You know NOT to steal, murder and rape and if you do and you feel bad afterward so what? Charlie Manson could cry a river and apply to become a priest, I still think he's a psychopath for what has been done and if the church decided to let him then they are enabling evil.

You don't need the church to know psychopathic behavior is not only not in your own best interest but in the best interest of society at large. If your house is burning you know the fire department will be summoned because not only will it damage you but those around you. You didn't need to pray to a higher power to summon them.

Accidents do happen and we also posses without the church the power to forgive. However, an accident means that there was no intent to do an amoral act. We ask for pardon, pay our fines as required and move along. We didn't need a church to say sorry. Without traffic cops we can drive and not run over each other. The Church is not a cop or judge that is required to be human.

You're missing the point. The church provides a milieu that people grow up in. Even your moral code has been shaped by the influence of Christianity.

As for Manson, that's a stretch. Yep, he's a psychopath and always will be, so any remorse on his part would be fake. But someone who is genuinely remorseful, and backs that up with his actions - you would condemn him for ever? It's not the Christian church telling me that's not right. just my own moral code. No doubt influenced by Christianity (and Buddhism).

[sandorski]

Religion- Exploiting peoples insecurities for enrichment since before written history.

[Scape]

Sunday school can just be regular school and you would still learn to read and write without stabbing anyone. What makes the church so special? What if we were in India or China? They didn't have the church telling them how to live their lives and the Russian communists were atheists yet they have had modern thriving societies that had laws of right and wrong without aid from JC and the gang.

The church moral code is a doppelganger on what civil society already requires in order to thrive, civility.

[DanSC]

Choosing a few bad cases as a full damnation of Christianity would be like wanting to dismantle the British Monarchy because Henry VIII and George III were crazy.