Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

So, what the heck is a Christian atheist?

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

15 Aug 2018, 9:41 am

Mikah wrote:
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).

There's another option. Humans are neutral, capable of good or evil.
Fnord wrote:
The concept of "Original Sin" also enables the concept of "Inherited Guilt", which gives us the Left-Wing Liberal practice of blaming every white person alive today for antebellum slavery in a vain attempt to justify the concept of 'reparations' to the descendants of slaves (e.g., 'Blacks') by the descendants of slave-owners (e.g., 'Whites').

Which brings me to another point, slavery. Jesus was no great moral teacher since he didn't condemn slavery.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

15 Aug 2018, 11:49 am

AspE wrote:
Mikah wrote:
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).

There's another option. Humans are neutral, capable of good or evil.
Fnord wrote:
The concept of "Original Sin" also enables the concept of "Inherited Guilt", which gives us the Left-Wing Liberal practice of blaming every white person alive today for antebellum slavery in a vain attempt to justify the concept of 'reparations' to the descendants of slaves (e.g., 'Blacks') by the descendants of slave-owners (e.g., 'Whites').

Which brings me to another point, slavery. Jesus was no great moral teacher since he didn't condemn slavery.


Humans are neutral? Now there’s a novel concept! :wink:


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

15 Aug 2018, 12:37 pm

Fnord wrote:
The concept of "Original Sin" also enables the concept of "Inherited Guilt", which gives us the Left-Wing Liberal practice of blaming every white person alive today for antebellum slavery in a vain attempt to justify the concept of 'reparations' to the descendants of slaves (e.g., 'Blacks') by the descendants of slave-owners (e.g., 'Whites').


I see the link, but it is not an inevitability.

AspE wrote:
There's another option. Humans are neutral, capable of good or evil.


In practice I would suspect that would play out as a lazy, less onerous version of original sin.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

15 Aug 2018, 1:13 pm

Fnord wrote:
Mikah wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Actually, Christianity's view on humans is that they are born immoral, sinners - and their sins only can be cleansed by believing in Jesus Christ. I find the Original Sin concept is the most twisted side in Christianity. Both Jews and Muslims don't believe in it.
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).
The concept of "Original Sin" also enables the concept of "Inherited Guilt", which gives us the Left-Wing Liberal practice of blaming every white person alive today for antebellum slavery in a vain attempt to justify the concept of 'reparations' to the descendants of slaves (e.g., 'Blacks') by the descendants of slave-owners (e.g., 'Whites').


Also, speaking from the perspective of a female, that we women are more "sinful" than men because we chomped on the apple first.

In any case, I don't believe in getting my morality from a bunch of books written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

15 Aug 2018, 1:19 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Mikah wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Actually, Christianity's view on humans is that they are born immoral, sinners - and their sins only can be cleansed by believing in Jesus Christ. I find the Original Sin concept is the most twisted side in Christianity. Both Jews and Muslims don't believe in it.
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).
The concept of "Original Sin" also enables the concept of "Inherited Guilt", which gives us the Left-Wing Liberal practice of blaming every white person alive today for antebellum slavery in a vain attempt to justify the concept of 'reparations' to the descendants of slaves (e.g., 'Blacks') by the descendants of slave-owners (e.g., 'Whites').


Also, speaking from the perspective of a female, that we women are more "sinful" than men because we chomped on the apple first.

In any case, I don't believe in getting my morality from a bunch of books written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.


As a woman, I also had trouble connecting to a male deity in a male-centric religion based on a misogynist text.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

15 Aug 2018, 1:54 pm

Mikah wrote:
In practice I would suspect that would play out as a lazy, less onerous version of original sin.

Lazy



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

15 Aug 2018, 2:54 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Mikah wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Actually, Christianity's view on humans is that they are born immoral, sinners - and their sins only can be cleansed by believing in Jesus Christ. I find the Original Sin concept is the most twisted side in Christianity. Both Jews and Muslims don't believe in it.
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).
The concept of "Original Sin" also enables the concept of "Inherited Guilt", which gives us the Left-Wing Liberal practice of blaming every white person alive today for antebellum slavery in a vain attempt to justify the concept of 'reparations' to the descendants of slaves (e.g., 'Blacks') by the descendants of slave-owners (e.g., 'Whites').


Also, speaking from the perspective of a female, that we women are more "sinful" than men because we chomped on the apple first.

In any case, I don't believe in getting my morality from a bunch of books written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.


As a woman, I also had trouble connecting to a male deity in a male-centric religion based on a misogynist text.


I've found most major religions sh_t on women in one way or another.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

15 Aug 2018, 5:19 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Mikah wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Actually, Christianity's view on humans is that they are born immoral, sinners - and their sins only can be cleansed by believing in Jesus Christ. I find the Original Sin concept is the most twisted side in Christianity. Both Jews and Muslims don't believe in it.
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).
The concept of "Original Sin" also enables the concept of "Inherited Guilt", which gives us the Left-Wing Liberal practice of blaming every white person alive today for antebellum slavery in a vain attempt to justify the concept of 'reparations' to the descendants of slaves (e.g., 'Blacks') by the descendants of slave-owners (e.g., 'Whites').
Also, speaking from the perspective of a female, that we women are more "sinful" than men because we chomped on the apple first. In any case, I don't believe in getting my morality from a bunch of books written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.
As a woman, I also had trouble connecting to a male deity in a male-centric religion based on a misogynist text.
I've found most major religions sh_t on women in one way or another.
Amen to that...


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

15 Aug 2018, 9:07 pm

AspE wrote:
Mikah wrote:
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).

There's another option. Humans are neutral, capable of good or evil.


I always figured neutral was the best term. Humans are just another animal. Look at animals in the wild. They are empathetic to others in their own pack and group. Yet at the same time, they have no qualms hurting other animals if they are a threat to the group. Sounds very similiar to human behavior to me. Capable of both depending on the exact scenario.



Mythos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 457
Location: England

16 Aug 2018, 1:05 pm

Cash__ wrote:
AspE wrote:
Mikah wrote:
That's what makes Christianity superior. If not original sin, you are in severe danger of inventing something akin to original virtue, which legitimises any instinct, thought or desire (it must come from a good place if we are virtuous by nature).

There's another option. Humans are neutral, capable of good or evil.


I always figured neutral was the best term. Humans are just another animal. Look at animals in the wild. They are empathetic to others in their own pack and group. Yet at the same time, they have no qualms hurting other animals if they are a threat to the group. Sounds very similiar to human behavior to me. Capable of both depending on the exact scenario.


Assuming that those same animals can't also feel empathy for those they have never met before, which I strongly disagree is a common trait in humans (at least, most humans).