Why Christianity?

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
1

Here is my catechism on “why Christianity” as well as “why have religion at all?” It’s based on reason and not scripture.

Why have Religion at all?

To have religion means to believe in a soul. If someone does not believe in the soul then they have two choices: to be a complete nihilist and generally duck out of politics (and almost everything else) entirely, living only for their own enjoyments. Most find that unacceptable even if they don’t believe in spirits or souls, so they go and affiliate themselves with a political ideology that makes quasi-religious overtures. These overtures are usually a reference to the idea of creating a “heaven on earth” through wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution seems easy at first, but if one person grows their share of the wealth while others do not, you eventually have inequality all over again. This usually results in those want to create a heaven on earth becoming communists or fascists. These ideologies accept the idea of constant and endless warfare as a solution to the return of inequality. Their governments don’t seem to stand the test of time; they are prone to corruption and infighting. They never seem to satisfy themselves as much as other civilizations can, not even if they succeed in expelling their outside enemies and securing their hegemony. The “revolution” never stops and this failure must rationally draw into question the objective value of their beliefs and goals.

This dilemma is one of the destructions that I believe God heaps upon the unfaithful; that they can never rest and never succeed.

I do believe in spirits or souls; so why not Buddhism?

You could be a Buddhist and believe in the soul but Buddhism has a doctrinal flaw. This flaw is the idea that you are expected to avoid all “attachments” without exception. A Buddhist’s own family is considered an attachment to the material world. This means that Buddhists are encouraged to reject and even leave their own families, as the first Buddha Shakyamuni did. This anti-family dialogue is probably why Buddhism is declining and is probably also indirectly responsible for the low fertility rates found in east Asian countries.

Why not Islam?

You could be a Muslim but this requires something very difficult and rationally questionable; namely Jihad. Jihad is the state of endless conflict against the unbelievers and most of all against the fake Muslims. The warrior Jihadist is said to rank above the non-violent Jihadist in heaven and this naturally means that the conflict will spill over into physical altercations. Ironically, this makes Islam very similar to communism and fascism in that all of these ideologies result in endless conflict. Islam is basically a totalitarian ideology (as communism and fascism are) except that Islam believes in a soul. As with communist and fascist countries, Muslim countries usually lack the peace and prosperity which Christian (or non-totalitarian) countries have due to the infighting engendered by their beliefs.

Why Christianity?

If you’re a Christian, you can strive to do good and even to obtain and distribute communal luxuries. You can avoid the pitfalls of extreme political ideologies because you believe in the soul; this belief obviates the need for building a heaven on earth. Unlike with Buddhism, you can strive for (and are encouraged to seek) a large family. Unlike with Islam, you can forgive and even be kind to those who won’t follow you. Only in Christ can you find peace. For me, I studied all of the major religions and decided that Christianity was rationally the best choice.

Blog: alexanderfang.wordpress.com/201 … istianity/

2

[quote=“Il Ðoge”]Here is my catechism on “why Christianity” as well as “why have religion at all?” It’s based on reason and not scripture.

Why have Religion at all?

To have religion means to believe in a soul. If someone does not believe in the soul then they have two choices: to be a complete nihilist and generally duck out of politics (and almost everything else) entirely, living only for their own enjoyments. Most find that unacceptable even if they don’t believe in spirits or souls, so they go and affiliate themselves with a political ideology that makes quasi-religious overtures. These overtures are usually a reference to the idea of creating a “heaven on earth” through wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution seems easy at first, but if one person grows their share of the wealth while others do not, you eventually have inequality all over again. This usually results in those want to create a heaven on earth becoming communists or fascists. These ideologies accept the idea of constant and endless warfare as a solution to the return of inequality. Their governments don’t seem to stand the test of time; they are prone to corruption and infighting. They never seem to satisfy themselves as much as other civilizations can, not even if they succeed in expelling their outside enemies and securing their hegemony. The “revolution” never stops and this failure must rationally draw into question the objective value of their beliefs and goals.

This dilemma is one of the destructions that I believe God heaps upon the unfaithful; that they can never rest and never succeed.

[/quote]

What are you basing these statements on?

3

Now do the same thing for Krishna Consciousness.

4

Those are boring pseudo-reas0ns. The only reason is that we have the best music. youtube.com/watch?v=ZDFFHaz9GsY

5

[quote=“Il Ðoge”]Here is my catechism on “why Christianity” as well as “why have religion at all?” It’s based on reason and not scripture.

Why have Religion at all?

To have religion means to believe in a soul. If someone does not believe in the soul then they have two choices: to be a complete nihilist and generally duck out of politics (and almost everything else) entirely, living only for their own enjoyments. Most find that unacceptable even if they don’t believe in spirits or souls, so they go and affiliate themselves with a political ideology that makes quasi-religious overtures. These overtures are usually a reference to the idea of creating a “heaven on earth” through wealth redistribution. [/quote]

Some do- communists, for example- many find other ways to make their lives meaningful. I doubt if you will find many atheists on this site who are utopians.

Fascists don’t actually oppose material inequality- and again, those are paths chosen by very few people. People who must dedicate themselves to a greater cause often turn out that way, as do religious fanatics- but most religious people don’t devote themselves to the Cause that way, either.

[quote]I do believe in spirits or souls; so why not Buddhism?

You could be a Buddhist and believe in the soul but Buddhism has a doctrinal flaw. This flaw is the idea that you are expected to avoid all “attachments” without exception. A Buddhist’s own family is considered an attachment to the material world. This means that Buddhists are encouraged to reject and even leave their own families, as the first Buddha Shakyamuni did. This anti-family dialogue is probably why Buddhism is declining and is probably also indirectly responsible for the low fertility rates found in east Asian countries.[/quote]

After 2500 years of being the leading religion in the most heavily populated regions on Earth, now they’re responsible for low birth rates? It wouldn’t be, like everywhere else, wealth + education= low birth rate?
Plus, in most Buddhist cultures, the tradition is that only a few become monks or nuns permanently- most do it for a few years when they are young, or after their children have grown and they can lay their wordly burdens down.

Why not Islam?

While I believe Islam is partly responsible for the poor shape most Muslim countries are in, historically it has been as violent as…Christianity. You know, struggle against fake Christians? The difference is that Christianity was tamed by the Wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th Century.

[quote]Why Christianity?

If you’re a Christian, you can strive to do good and even to obtain and distribute communal luxuries. You can avoid the pitfalls of extreme political ideologies because you believe in the soul; this belief obviates the need for building a heaven on earth. Unlike with Buddhism, you can strive for (and are encouraged to seek) a large family. Unlike with Islam, you can forgive and even be kind to those who won’t follow you. Only in Christ can you find peace. For me, I studied all of the major religions and decided that Christianity was rationally the best choice.
Blog: alexanderfang.wordpress.com/201 … istianity/[/quote]

Except followers of those other religions andnon-believers can do all those things too- you’d have to show why Christians are the only ones who can do those things that most people who are not Christians are, in fact, actually doing.

6

What?

There are other choices. I recognize that your first “choice” is unacceptable to most–regardless of their beliefs. The next statement is a huge leap–the blithe “so” is a tour de force in conjecture. Your supposition seems to turn on the concept of “wealth distribution” though it is not explained why this would be a particular concern of those who do not believe in souls.

7

–Parallel Earth Doge

8

What?[/quote]

Yeah, I don’t get it either.

The most secular nations on earth are also the most highly developed. Secular nations have low rates of violent crime, not high. And anyone familiar with the demographics of atheism knows that atheists tend to be better educated and wealthier than the general population. Data from the US shows that atheists there are less likely to be in prison, not more, despite the fact that Americans tend to view atheists as immoral. The funniest one for me is that Christian teenagers who are taught to abstain from sex are more likely to get pregnant, not less likely - of course one cannot assume that people actually act on the morality they profess.

9

False dichotomies, non-sequiturs, special pleading, failure to define concepts like “soul” and “spirit”.

Sounds to me like plain old proselytizing.

10

[quote=“Chris”]False dichotomies, non-sequiturs, special pleading, failure to define concepts like “soul” and “spirit”.

Sounds to me like plain old proselytizing.[/quote]

Yup, not too convinced, El Thin White Duke. I’m a Christian but none of your reasoning makes much sense to me.

Humans are very good at maintaining multiple inconsistencies in their views. Logically, strong atheism implies that nothing matters. I can slaughter millions and it means nothing. Those people were just a complex collection of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen. In reality, most atheists are actually humanists. I can’t get my head around the idea of humanity-in-general as a deity, but a lot of people are happy with that, and in practice secular societies DO function a lot better than theocracies.

I think you’re conflating religious belief - a belief in a God, or of something larger than our limited human existence - with religious organisations. Personal beliefs, or attempts to add meaning to human existence, are basically harmless and may be a Good Thing. Religous organisations, of any stripe, are invariably destructive.

11

What if humans had innate morality?

And what about Socrates? What was he dying for?

12

I’m sure morality is innate, as there are traces of it seen in other species too. Dogs and chimps, for example. No need for religion to build morality from scratch. And no way for it to do so either, unless co-opting a natural tendency for its own nefarious intentions.

Now there’s a topic for debate.

Over to you.

13

You guys beat me to it–you seem to be ignoring morality as a factor finley.

14

Altruism strengthens the herd. Nothing moral about it. Organised atheism is religious behaviour.

15

I don’t think so … my point was that, in a universe driven only by physics, with no higher meaning or purpose, then even ‘innate’ moral codes are nothing more than a mechanistic expression of evolutionary programming. It’s neither here nor there if we choose (and what is ‘choice’ in that context?) to violate those codes.

Even if you assume humans are innately moral beings, you’re left with the question ‘where does innate morality come from?’. If you exclude the possibility of divine intervention, you’re left with humanity as God. It’s pretty difficult to believe in no God at all. Some people do, but the metaphysical implications are fearsome. That’s why a lot of people prefer to believe in one, even if it’s a little wooden statue of fat guy in the living room.

Codes of human behaviour are pretty varied. There are few commonalities that could be described as “innate”. Most of us just happen to have grown up in societies which are based on a Judeo-Christian heritage. There are lots of places where the Ten Commandments would be a bit puzzling. There are more than a few where you’d be having that conversation with The Terminator:

“You just can’t go around killing people!”
“Why?”
“What do you mean ‘why’? Because you can’t”.
“Why?”
“Because you just can’t, OK?”

It turns out that survival of the herd works out just fine where people do go around hacking each other to bits for the fun of it. Keeps the gene pool unpolluted, if a bit sparse. The evolutionary arguments for Judeo-Christian morality are just hand-waving with little hard evidence to support them.

That’s one reason I find Christianity interesting and dislike all organised religions (including nominally Christian ones). I’ve mentioned this elsewhere but maybe this is a good thread to repeat my personal reasoning:

  • The Decalogue specifically is the only law code in human history that is a list of behaviours and not a list of punishments. It basically says, “Because you just can’t, OK?”. It’s also exceedingly concise. That, to me, suggests it is not of human origin. Corroborating evidence: the bunch of random bullshit that Jewish lawyers of the day tacked onto the end, and that rambles on for pages and pages and pages. You could argue that the Decalogue has some pretty important omissions - for example, it has no prohibition on GBH or rape - but IMO they’re not really omitted but implied. The intent behind the commandments as a whole is clear (Jesus actually summarized the entirety of the Jewish law in a single phrase), so rape for example is prohibited by a combination of the prohibitions on theft, adultery, and covetousness. Hence the concise formulation. Commandments which appear superficially odd - such as the prohibition on idolatry and envy - have profound and surprising real-world consequences when violated.

  • As for Christianity specifically, Jesus’s view of morality is quite unlike any other. It is simultaneously otherworldly and practical. OTOH he did specifically say: grow yourselves a conscience. Don’t sit on your ass waiting for your elders and betters to tell you what to do. So perhaps morality itself is not innate, but the ability to create it is (rather as any human can - theoretically - sing, but few bother to acquire the skill).

  • Jesus’s comment about fiat currency stunned even the intellectuals of the day. The likes of Mohammed, Buddha etc did not - IMO - demonstrate anything like the same grasp of human affairs as Jesus.

He seems to have concluded it was a good way to escape from stupid people.

16

Not at all - it’s just that if you “believe in” human morality - whether innate or as a social construct - then that makes you a humanist, not an atheist. Humanity as God. It’s pretty difficult to believe in no God at all. Some people do, but the metaphysical implications are fearsome. That’s why a lot of people prefer to believe in one, even if it’s a little wooden statue of fat guy in the living room.[/quote]

I don’t believe in a god and it’s really quite easy. :smiley: But I don’t believe in humanity as a god - I don’t really understand what you mean by that or why you would think that way about atheists. I believe human morality exists only in the same way I believe mountains exist, it is not a moral normative.

I don’t go around hacking people to bits because I have a conscience - the very thought of it is terrible. Also, sometimes I do ‘good’ things because they feel good. I believe these feelings are innate and shared by the vast majority of people, sociopaths aside.

17

I changed my phrasing there because I hadn’t expressed myself well.

You’ve most likely just absorbed Judeo-Christian norms of behaviour.

There are many societies where a majority have no conscience and do not see any need to develop one. They are terrifying.

The way I see it is this: it’s inconceivable that our limited human apprehension of the universe could be all that there is. We have woefully limited senses even compared to other animals. We’re not a whole lot smarter than baboons. What we know of physics suggests that the universe is utterly damn weird. There must be a whole lot going on that we’re not aware of: who was it who came up with the metaphor of sitting in a dark cave and inferring the nature of reality by watching the shadows? Was that Plato? Anyway, i like that one. There are places in the world which - I am absolutely sure - are ruled by demons from hell, at the invitation of the local populace. I think there are others where people recognize the existence of, and the need for, God, however imperfectly.

18

What societies are you thinking of–Wall Street? Prison? Sri Lanka?

Yentl wept.

19

[quote=“finley”]I changed my phrasing there because I hadn’t expressed myself well.

You’ve most likely just absorbed Judeo-Christian norms of behaviour.[/quote]

Taiwan, Japan and Singapore are all very safe societies, famously so. Yet they certainly haven’t absorbed Judeo-Christian norms. Isn’t it obvious that morality is a universal human trait that manifests itself more strongly once a society has developed and everyone has enough to eat?

20

OTOH, it can be argued that societies like Islamic State and the Taliban are also extremely moral, just that their moral code is different to ours in the “civilised” West.

But that still predicates an innate morality, or at least the capacity for brains to hold a set of values that can be called moral, even though that definition may vary from culture to culture, place to place, and time to time.