Why has God allowed religion to be so tribal?

[Jason118]

There is so much solid teachings in religious dogma and so many warm and kind people who practice. Why has it all come to this, or was it ever thus?

Missymoo

Orphanages, hospitals and laws were not founded by Christianity,that's simply not true. Universities maybe, but only as a method of maintaining religious domination. It was the enlightenment (turning away from theological dictatorship) that allowed non religious people to attend university.

The people that God kills in the Bible are 'wicked' and therefore it's ok to kill them? Doesn't sound very objectively moral to me. Sounds pretty subjective to the will of 'God'. It says 'thou shall not kill', it doesn't say 'thou shall not kill, unless they are bad people, then it's ok'

Vitalogy

When you say farming I think you are imagining some kind of 'Children of Cherry Tree Farm' like rural idyll.

The reality of historical farming in places like China was backbreaking labour from dawn till dusk, from the moment you were strong enough until the day you dropped dead in order to scrape a hand to mouth living from the soil.

As opposed to moving to a city where the conditions aren't great, but life and more importantly opportunities to advance your position and that of your family are far better.

I liken it to this-
God made penguins,
He said to them I'm making you a certain way, with certain limitations, and set behaviours for you to follow.
Penguins decided to defy the truth about their own nature,- thinking themselves clever and believing it unfair they cannot fly like the other birds- they decide to ignore god and do it anyway, flying is going to be fun- so they nose dive off a cliff and die.
Therefore gods nature is reflected in us, (made in his image) when we fight it and break from the truth, we are going to come unstuck.
To me god is a higher universal truth, he just IS- and ignoring god leads to ruin.
Humans are the only species that seem not to be able to define their own behaviours or think they can set the rules to suit.

Missymoo

I don't know where to go with that. Humans are the only species that know what behaviour and rules are for starters...🤔

Are you advocating some kind of biological determinism?

I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian God by the way? If we ignore him then all these bad things will happen? What about Hindus? Buddhists? Zoroastrians? (You get the idea) are they all doomed as well becuase they 'ignore' God? This seems pretty complicated, pretty unfair and most importantly, not in any way objective.

What are your thoughts? Are you going to answer any points put to you at all? Or just keep moving the subject on to other aspects of 'why God is the best...'

Penguins decided to defy the truth about their own nature,- thinking themselves clever and believing it unfair they cannot fly like the other birds- they decide to ignore god and do it anyway, flying is going to be fun- so they nose dive off a cliff and die.

Except we know at some point the ancestors of penguins did fly

Patriarchy
Orphanages were, because people kept abandoning babies on the steps of churches so they set up the first orphanages
Hospitals were because monasteries took in the sick for care.
As this article explains

As the Roman Empire turned to Christianity, the Church's role in providing for the sick became firmly established. After 400 AD, many monasteries were constructed generally including accommodations for travelers, the poor, and the sick. The monarchs of the 6th century reinforced this role with emperors, such as Charlemagne, who directed that a hospital should be attached to every cathedral that was built in his empire. Religious institutions continued to provide most of the healthcare to the poor in large, open wards, while physicians continued the practice of making house calls to the upper class. The religious influence in early healthcare is illustrated by duties of the Warden (Administrator) of St Mary's Hospital in England in 1390. He was required to not only satisfy himself of the seriousness of the medical complaint, but to also hear the confession of the patient before admission.

What are your thoughts? Are you going to answer any points put to you at all?

You make that sound like I haven't answered any questions- I'm confused because here I am, thinking I'm, well, answering questions????

Missymoo

You might want to Google 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'

Just because Christians did something, doesn't mean they invented it or were the only ones who did it.

Ok, Missy, I'll take you at face value. Here is a question for you to answer.

How is God's massacre of all the first born children of Egypt consistent with your principle of objective morality?

Wrong analogy.
If you want to use penguins fine..but they were penguins that were told they can only be on land and stay away from the water. And they didn't, thus discovering a bigger "world" , dangerous and icy , but not incompatible with penguin life.

If God was really like you portray him,he would've simply destroyed Adam and Eve and start over again. Dirt was aplenty as were the days.

It's human nature to be so arrogant to think that humans are so perfectly flawed that God had no choice but to let us exist .

Yes but those things were directly linked to Christianity because of the principles of looking after the week, feeding the poor- you may not like it but it's true

And in non Christian countries missy ?
The world's oldest university is Islamic, in Morocco. Islamic medicine was also far more advanced than Christian in the Middle Ages.

I don't 'not like it' Missy, I don't even dispute it. I'm just saying that you seem to be claiming that Christian invented being nice and caring for people.

Newsflash, they didn't.

Any thoughts on objective morality or have you dropped that one?

How is God's massacre of all the first born children of Egypt consistent with your principle of objective morality?

Well first born son, doesn't necessarily mean a baby- it could be an adult-
The Egyptians requested every baby boy to be killed by the midwives, long before this happened.
The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites and subjected them to inhumane treatment.
Gods aim was to set the people free and the Egyptians kept saying no... so the plagues increased with severity.
The humans, the Israelites in this story did not kill anyone.
The blood of the Passover lamb is symbolic of Jesus sacrifice on the cross

Missy you haven't justified anything there, you have just described what happened. So it's ok for children to die for the sins of their people? Is that objectively moral?

Also I believe that God 'hardened the heart' of Pharoah specifically so he wouldn't listen to the Israelites pleas. Was that moral of him?

Well first born son, doesn't necessarily mean a baby- it could be an adult-

So the objective morality of thou shalt not kill isn't that objective then? Only applies to babies?

But God still killed all the first born children ?
What about the mass genocide of Noah's flood ? How is this consistent with objective morality ? How can this be justified if God is omnibenevolent ?

While antecedents had existed in Asia and Africa,[2][3] the modern university system has roots in the European medieval university, which was created in Italy and evolved from Christian Cathedral schools for the clergy during the High Middle Ages.[4]

Well these are questions relating to the nature of god, and although god is loving it doesn't mean he is approving or isn't capable of things that seem harsh in our eyes.

I'm not a religious person as such but I believe that GOD is everything that is good, pure and unconditional love, peace etc and we can either choose to be part of that or separate from it. When we die I believe our energy/spirit leaves the body and goes back to the original source call it God or whatever but it's a place of love, kindness and peace.

Well first born son, doesn't necessarily mean a baby- it could be an adult-

I said this to clarify because people say children, as patriarchy has just said, and it doesn't say child . Just a point of notice

Missy Whether it's harsh or not isn't the point, it's whether it's objectively moral.

You claim that objective moral standards exist and they come from God, myself and others are using well known biblical examples of God's subjective, unfair treatment of people he didn't like to prove that even if objective morality does exist, then the God described in the Bible is not objectively moral.

Genocide is not loving

The free will argument that Christians produce seems to hinge on the idea that God wouldn't want to control us. Why not exactly? Seems an obvious question? Why is it so important to God that we have the ability to commit sins?

The free will clause is utter nonsense. Somehow god not acting to prevent suffering is viewed as good. If I knew a paedophile was about to rape a child and did nothing as I didn't want to impede the paedophile's free will people would rightly think I was a monster. Why am I expected to act and prevent suffering but not god?

well context is everything, you'd have to give more specific examples for my opinion.
However god wanted to protect the Jews, from the influences and evils around them, so that they could create a moral world.