Why (or why not) be Christian?

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing the "Will you make it to heaven?" threads started by @VincitVeritas which have become a more wide-ranging discussion about matters of faith, Christian belief.

Hope to see you on here when the last thread runs out of space! And new posters welcome too.

We've recently been discussing the evidence for God, the soul and life after death, and debating what constitutes reliable evidence in this context.

Also some talk about whether it's accurate to say humans are 'sinful' and why/why not, some discussion of Paul and the validity of his writings and status as an apostle, how the Bible was formed (and why other writings didn't make the canon) the basis of morality/ethics, whether Jesus's message was intended for an excusively Jewish audience, the meaning of Christ (or Messiah), church tradition and different denominations, end times and probably more I've forgotten!

So what about people who can’t or don’t want to, or just don’t have children? Have they no purpose?

All living organisms, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce; reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.

In times of hardship, low resources, etc where the potential parents perceive that their offspring would stand a low chance of success and survival they may forgo having children all together. This may be to wait for future better opportunities where conditions are more conducive to producing offspring or to support siblings/relatives who are having children as they carry at least some of the same genetic markers. By providing additional support in this manner they ensure that their genetic lineage will continue even if not directly thus providing a benefit compared to others.

Lol. But that doesn’t really happen does it. You seem to have a view of “life” and here I use it in the narrowest sense in terms of cause and effect, measurements, empirical data.. what a sad one dimensional way of looking at the world. Enjoy Newtons sleep

No, they don’t murder people because it’s the wrong thing to do. They don’t steal because it’s the wrong thing to do. The threat of arrest and jail is secondary in this instance.

Religion does not have a monopoly over morality. Just try and be a good human being, to your self and others. You don’t need this god of yours to stand over you and remind you to be a good person. You don’t need an old book from centuries ago, to tell you to be a good person. You have agency over your own self.

Exactly. Religious people need to stop telling other people that all people are fundamentally bad, that we are all sinners. Why would you live a life believing that. Imagine teaching this to your children, like I was taught as a child? And actually truly believing this, and actually getting real comfort from this notion?

Christ didn’t die for my sins, I didn’t ask him to, I was not born a sinner, and I am not fundamentally bad and I don’t need Jesus to save me, as I am very ok, as Are actually so many people who don’t believe in him, or the spirit, or the god and everything in between.

Well this was exactly my point - someone claimed Christian’s need a threat so they behave. They don’t need it to not do these things in the sane way you describe atheists don’t need it.

Incidentally, why do you think these things are “wrong”?

But so many religious do. They are fearful of hell - hundred of millions of people actually believe hell exists, but want to actually end up in heaven so they try and do the “right thing” on the basis of that.

Why is it “wrong” to murder someone, or to steal, or just to hurt someone? Because it is wrong - you would be making someone suffer at your hands, and any normal and sane person wouldn’t want another human being to suffer like that. Secondly, such behaviour is bad for evolution, bad for society, bad for humanity. Obviously and very clearly, people understood this, a very long time ago, way before any prophets turned up and decided to teach us these key fundamentals of universal humanity.

But just because what you’re calling a threat is there doesn’t make it any more of a sway over peoples behaviour, whether that threat is hell or jail. I’m not clear on why you draw the distinction? Are you saying atheists are just inherently good and Christian’s bad. You’ll need to expand this further.

Why does stealing make people suffer? Why is stealing bad for evolution? Stealing is predicated on an ideology. Stealing is only bad because it contravenes man made rules on private ownership of property. It creates its own suffering.

Religious people need to stop telling other people that all people are fundamentally bad, that we are all sinners.

@NotSoBetty, you misunderstood my post. I said we weren't as human beings, 'fundamentally good'. I clarified this further in my later post, where I said,

'But we're not fundamentally good or bad as humans. We have the potential for both.'

I like these lyrics:

"It is this eternal dance that separates human beings
From angels, from demons, from gods
And I must not forget, we must not forget
That we are human beings"
(Hi Ren by Ren Gill)

Incidentally, why do you think these things are “wrong”?

The selfish genes along with reciprocal altruism and various forms of signalling like dominance signalling, sexual signalling and virtue signalling provide a very comprehensive explanation of moral or moral-like behaviors of humans and other animals. Being moral is very much an outcome of our evolution.

Morality therefore fits the survival needs of intelligent social animals very nicely. Which is more likely to be a successful species: a tribe of animals that looks after the well-being of its members or one that doesn’t?

In other words, we do not need any religion to be moral. We know what is in our best interests without any gods.

@Lalupalina,

Being moral is very much an outcome of our evolution...

In other words, we do not need any religion to be moral. We know what is in our best interests without any gods.

The limitations of this is it is what is in 'our best interests', so it comes entirely from the perspective of being human, not from the perspective of what is best for the whole of creation. Evolution is also historic, based on what has gone before rather than being based on the present, looking into the future which assumes nothing new will happen.

“Are you saying atheists are just inherently good and Christian’s bad. You’ll need to expand this further.”

No, I am not saying that. Why put words in my mouth?

@Lalupalina and even though, with evolution, things can progress over time (although not always as contexts change see previous post), it is still possible to inherit genetic flaws.

We are all born good - what they do after that is up to them. Thankfully the majority of us are fundamentally good anyway which has nothing to do with faith.

But using the bible for our morality would have us still living in the dark ages! Slavery, women subservient, executions...

@Parker231

We are all born good - what they do after that is up to them.

I would say we are born innocent because that takes into consideration our genetic disposition, inherited strengths and weaknesses, tendencies. I believe we are a product of nature and nurture and, if we choose, something Higher.

@HannibalHeyes

But using the bible for our morality would have us still living in the dark ages! Slavery, women subservient, executions...

Using the Bible, perhaps. But the Christian faith, as I have said before is not about using the Bible for our own purposes, to justify our own selfish decisions. It's about having a relationship with the Living God, through Christ, Who leads us and shows us how scripture can be applied to the context of our own lives.

@Parker231 sorry, the first sentence is your's I meant to put it in bold.

It sounds like you’re performing mental gymnastics in order to fit complex points into a one dimensional ideology

Because that’s what it sounded like. Why should the concept of hell have any more sway over Christian’s behaviour than jail has over atheists?

Morality therefore fits the survival needs of intelligent social animals very nicely. Which is more likely to be a successful species: a tribe of animals that looks after the well-being of its members or one that doesn’t?

Probably one with a mixture of the two. No point investing in those who won't be able to contribute or may put the group at risk.

That doesn't fit my morality though and I doubt it does yours.

Then clearly you read it wrong. You suggested that interpretation, not me.

But it’s not just the fear of going to hell, that will motivate people to behave in a morally sound way, it’s the wanting to please this god and end up in heaven for all blissful eternity.

How is she performing mental gymnastics when she is articulating the point clearly and making sense, instead of being ambiguous and vague?

Which is why secular morality will always be superior, it's done for the good of the group not with the hope of a reward after death

Well if I “read it wrong” it clearly wasn’t expressed very clearly at all. So please re-express what you actually meant so that you can clarify the situation.

I think the point clearly illustrates what I was saying about people needing something bigger than themselves. In you view, that is society and others, in a Christian’s view it is God.

if you remove a supernatural element which can only ever be a matter of opinion whether it exists or not believers and atheist have exactly the same motivations as each other, they’re just moving towards different things (although I would argue they’re not really different just different labels) and away from something undesirable.