A mirror for you sinister immoral cruciphiles

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Jones on February 16, 2010 at 12:57am

Christianity is immoral and corrupting and grooming for god a wicked evil act committed by you sinister cruciphiles. Shame on you all.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Morgan on February 16, 2010 at 1:22am

I love you, too.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Jones on February 16, 2010 at 10:43am

Not so comforting when you consider torture to be love.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Morgan on February 16, 2010 at 11:21am

R.Jones : "you consider torture to be love."
You and I are going to get on just fine!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Jones on February 16, 2010 at 10:59am

Have another 5 mins to see how idiotic this very recently made up religion is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmEw_-5Q1I8&feature=related

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris on February 17, 2010 at 7:33am

I think Hitchens makes a very important point - in fact, a crucial point. The notion that the 'Son of God' had to be tortured to death (literally) for the sake of humanity's 'sins', is a grossly immoral one. As adults, we are responsible for our own behaviour. We do not expect to scapegoat someone else- to allow another to take the blame for our own wrongdoings. In normal life, we would consider such an act immoral, whether or not the scapegoat took on the job willingly.

This, to me, is the great moral failing of Christianity, and makes it an obscene and entirely unacceptable religion.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Jones on February 17, 2010 at 9:36am

I think it is undeniable Chris. Our faithful friends with their 30,000 plus versions of wrong are elsewhere fighting over conflicting absurdities - with no prospect of resolution - as they have all ceded the powers of critical thinking and rational analysis of evidence that could help them. But this is one area where they do agree, must agree - for it is fundamental to this sinister cult.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Morgan on February 17, 2010 at 9:48am

R.Jones : can you honestly affirm that we "have all ceded the powers of critical thinking and rational analysis of evidence that could help" us?
In theory (your theory) we have, but strangely enough, most of us are living our lives exactly as if our powers of critical thinking and rational analysis were more or less intact.
People actually observing us would have a hard time guessing that we are such unhinged individuals.
Except for me of course - but there again I was a crazy atheist and today I'm a crazy Christian. Which is why I feel I can identify with you, of course.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris on February 17, 2010 at 10:21am

Richard M - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my post above. I really do find the idea of Christ's sacrifice to be horribly immoral - help me out here, please.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Morgan on February 17, 2010 at 10:36am

Chris : "I really do find the idea of Christ's sacrifice to be horribly immoral"
So do I!

But I am preparing a fuller response which I will post later, since I think you are asking an essential question which deserves a well thought-out reply.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris on February 17, 2010 at 11:04am

Fair enough, Richard - look forward to your response.

Permalink Reply by Richard Morgan on February 18, 2010 at 9:43pm

My father once told me that as a boy he was quiet, serious, timid, reserved...you get the picture.
Physically fragile, he never joined in the regular "rough 'n' tumbles" which the others seemed to enjoy so much. He was frightened of getting hurt.
He never went scrumping (stealing apples) in the local farmer's orchard. He was frightened of getting caught.
His best friend was quite the opposite. Boisterous, good at sports, always getting up to pranks, but very good-hearted. My father would help him with his homework, his friend would protect him from the bullies.
They would go cycling and fishing together. Spend their sixpence a week pocket money on the matinée session of the local cinema.
They were good friends.
One day, goaded by the other boys, my father stole a shilling that the teacher had left on his desk. He felt he had to prove something, so with fear and trembling, he slipped the one shilling piece into his pocket.
When the teacher returned and found that the money had disappeared, he did the usual teacherly thing:
"Alright then - who's the culprit? Own up! Or are you too cowardly?"
Silence.
" Nobody in this classroom will leave this building until the culprit has either owned up, or been denounced."
My father got increasingly nervous and twitchy, and his friend saw that he was on the point of owning up. He immediately stood up and said, "It was me, sir."
"Good for you, laddie. Since you've had the courage to own up to this reprehensible crime of THEFT, you'll only get six of the best, instead of the twelve it deserves, and I will not inform the police...this time."
This powerful sign of sincere, sacrificial friendship further cemented their relationhsip, and they remained friends until the friend was killed in the Second World War. My father lived on to the age of 93.
And as my father used to tell me, seeing his friend take the punishment for him was a more powerful, gut-wrenching deterrent from pinching money on the teacher's desk (or anywhere else) than "twelve of the best" would have been. He did not get the "whacks" himself, but he certainly did not get away scot free.
If anybody admits the notion of moral standards, at some point, in building a society, there must be notions of crime and punishment. If you think that crime should go unpunished then my post will have no meaning for you. If you are morally perfect, then Christ did not need to die for you.
But you aren't and He did.
You may feel like a pretty decent person in your own eyes. You may think that you go through your life without ever hurting anybody. But if you make that claim, I would be tempted to suggest that you've been overdoing the Citalopram.
Christ loved the world.
He freed us from the dramatic consequences of our imperfections. Would we feel the same gratitude towards him, the same earnest desire to live our lives in a way worthy of his love, if he had simply signed a huge divine chèque (check) to pay a fine for us?
Pain is real, and everybody can identify with it. How many people have said to a loved one who is suffering desperately : "If I could take your pain, I would gladly do so..."
We can't do that. What we have left is compassion - "com-passion" - to suffer with. It seems to me that compassion is probably a Christian quality.
We do all that we humanly can - and we then we have compassion. You prefer the word empathy? That's fine.
But if you acknowledge the principles of justice (which requires laws and a law-maker), crime and punishment, and if you have understood, like my father all those years ago, the powerful impact of somebody suffering in your place out of love for you, you may begin to understand how shallow it is to say of Christ's sacrifice, "The notion that the 'Son of God' had to be tortured to death (literally) for the sake of humanity's 'sins', is a grossly immoral one."
Not liking the law has never exempted anybody from the consequences of breaking the law.
Not liking one's image of the law-maker is a secondary question and an argument from personal taste.

But I fully understand your interpretation of Christ's sacrifice, and from a human point of view, I would have to agree with you. But even that wouldn't make us right.
And I suppose that when you have no belief in a Divine Law-giver, whatever methods this "imaginary policman in the sky" might employ must leave you indifferent, and be of no concern to you.
Correct me if I'm mistaken.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 24
• Next ›
• Page