There are many reasons why I hate Christianity--and yes, I do literally hate Christianity. Why?--because of the negative doctrines it promotes, and the resulting "moral laxity"--which the Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago. Let me explain by offering the following analogy.
The following would be a "life situation" for many, and is analyzed from a Christian perspective:
Christians believe they are born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things because they are "born sinners." (Original sin) Now, a Christian man who says he loves his wife still beats her because she doesn't do as she is told. She forgives him for hurting her every time, because that is what her religion tells her to do. The man beats her because the same religion tells him he has authority over her, and he cannot help but to do bad things, so he does them thinking he can't help himself--but it's ok, because his god will forgive him. Until one fateful day when a beating ends in death, and he kills his wife with his bare hands.
THIS IS WHY I HATE CHRISTIANITY. I hate the fact that this religion tells people they are EXPECTED to behave badly. I hate the fact that there are NO CONSEQUENCES for their bad behavior in this life or the next for believers as long as they sincerely say "sorry" to Jesus. What about the victims?? What compensation do they get under the Christian system? None. There is no justice for victims of Christian crime--unless it is through secular laws. Therefore, Christianity in and of itself is IMMORAL and UNJUST. This is the biggest reason why I HATE Christianity.
If people believed they could do the right thing the first time, and took responsibility for their own actions instead of having "Jesus" do that for them, the world would be a much better place to live in.
19 comments:
Good points.
decemberitis.blogspot.com
In hie famous "Mea Culpa" of 2000, Pope John Paul II did the very same thing. He asked forgiveness not for the deeds of the Church, but for the deeds of people who "acted in the name of the Church".
One wonders what the surviving descendants of Catholic Christian activity thought of it all...
You won't accomplish anything by hating anyone. Also, no studied Christians believes these things. You should read through the Gospel again and get to the core of Christian faith. No one likes an ignorant preacher- Christian or Atheist.
@cdmayo
You are quite mistaken, as you can accomplish a great deal through hate--if you are hating the right things. Think of what could have happened if the world had not "hated Hitler for instance. If more women "hated" their abusive husbands, maybe so many of them would not have had to die at their hands.
And I have studied the religion EXTENSIVELY--I have taught it for 14 yrs at university level. The core of your philosophy is a convoluted version of "love" as illustrated above, and "forgiveness" for any heinous deed--which, as Pelagius noted long ago--leads to moral laxity. The proof is in the pudding so to speak, where we have a disproportionate amount of Christians in the penal system. You know, men who beat their wives to death--that actually get punished instead of being let off the hook.
How many studied Christians does one encounter? I can think of perhaps two that I have met. In the rural North Texas of my teen years, the majority of the Christians I encountered were the ignorant kind. They interpreted their religion exactly as A is for Atheist describes. They also comforted themselves easily by praying for the hungry, sick, poor, etc. but not actually doing anything to help them.
Admittedly, I am bitter because I was force fed religion. All of us should be bitter about the on-going efforts to force feed the nation, as a particularly uninformed and insidious Christianity attempts to govern.
The whole "born bad" guilt millstone christianity burdens its victims with is another aspect of the sadomasochistic delight in suffering at christianity's core. Struggling to succeed is noble. Suffering is not.
In the hand-to-mouth world of millennia ago, a message of hope that the insufferable struggle to survive gave some unimaginably distant reward had some merit. Making suffering a virtue relieves the indifferent from caring -- "Let em suffer, they must deserve it." And mollifies the sufferer from seeking a more just, fair, path through life.
While the religious have been telling their victims to suffer gladly, the advances of human innovation have given us the means to have easier lives. The biblical world was a pestilence ridden, famine deprived, fetid cesspool of wretched struggle for most. Ours is not, at least for the western, christian-occupied areas. Or there wouldn't be if christians didn't work so hard to define who should suffer more.
When suffering is a virtue, the reason to struggle for better is quashed, and the desire to help quelled.
@ Anonymous. Well said. I also imagine many do not realize the the revered Mother Teresa also believed suffering brought one "closer to god" and she did little to relieve the suffering of those under her care. In fact, most of the funds donated to her "cause" went back to the church. so much for "Christian charity."
Christianity is all about controlling and manipulating others--and the "false hope" that Christianity offers was a great hook for the suffering--but it's time to realize there are better ways to remedy suffering.
Yeah, but if people don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. The woman is going to get beaten whether she does the dishes or not. There will always be a reason for the violence. The only realistic solution is to leave the source of the violence and abuse, be it a spouse who promised to love and cherish until death do they part or an all-loving God who promised even more.
@ C Roberts--So, you are saying that beating a woman for not doing the dishes is justified because she is going to get beaten whether she does the dishes or not. Thank you for pointing out another "beef" I have with Christianity--that being women are treated as second class citizens, and even worse, they are treated as chattel--because that is how the Bible depicts women--as possessions. To people that follow the Bible, women are chattel--they were not even worth counting as "citizens" in the census taken by Moses in Numbers.
And without Augustine's "original sin" there would be NO NEED for Jesus either. And without the "sin" there would be NO NEED for women to be beaten by men who believe they are "sinners." Therefore, we are better off without the original sin, as we have no need to be redeemed from it--leaving no excuse for "being bad" other than our own choices. If you choose to beat someone to death it will then all be on you--and you must take the consequences.
Sorry
Your article is misinformed. Such a behavior would be condemned by the church and the individual expelled from the congregation. Paul stated that women should be in submission to the husband BUT he also stated that husbands should love their wives and treat them like their own body and also to give their lives up for them just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
The situation you described in the article in all honesty have men using verses in Corinthians to justify abusing their wives. But fail to treat the passage as a whole in the context which is a gross error on exegesis on their part. Its ironic that fundamentalists and atheists like Dawkins who would quote snippets of scripture without even bothering to read the entire chapter or learn its context either to debunk Christianity or justify heinous practices.
@ Alvin,
No, my article is not misinformed at all. History proves this, as literally millions of women have been abused and murdered by men "who believe in God"
Women are property in the bible. Moses does not even bother to include them in his census in Numbers. They are offered up for raping by their fathers because they were property--not people. The "token" women such as Deborah do not represent the majority of repressed and abused women.
Men have used the Bible to justify MANY heinous deeds--from the Crusades and Inquisitions; to the extermination of the Jews in WWII.
Christianity is responsible for many heinous practices--and it needs to be stopped.
Furthermore, if the exegesis of the text is incorrect, not only does that illustrate that your god "revealed" a text that is difficult to understand, and therefore difficult to interpret, but this would mean he is also responsible for the misinterpretation of the text. He is responsible for the misinterpretation because he "revealed" it in such a way as he KNEW it would be misinterpreted (he is "all-knowing" after all) and also because "...EVERY decision is from the Lord" Proverbs 16:33.
This Alvin guy who pretends to be a Deist is so obviously a Christian. I mean Deists traditionally hate Christianity and its moral laxity as much as you.
"That manufacturer of quibbles, St. Paul, if he wrote the books that bear his name, has helped this quibble on by making another quibble upon the word Adam. He makes there to be two Adams; the one who sins in fact, and suffers by proxy; the other who sins by proxy, and suffers in fact. A religion thus interlarded with quibble, subterfuge, and pun has a tendency to instruct its professors in the practice of these arts. They acquire the habit without being aware of the cause." --Thomas Paine
Alvin apparently is not aware where he acquired this habit, but it was from Paul and Christianity not from Deism.
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?"
"This single reflection will show, that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemption, obtained through the means of money given to the Church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth there is no such thing as redemption- that it is fabulous, and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker as he ever did stand since man existed, and that it is his greatest consolation to think so. Let him believe this, and he will live more consistently and morally than by any other system; it is by his being taught to contemplate himself as an outlaw, as an outcast, as a beggar, as a mumper, as one thrown, as it were, on a dunghill at an immense distance from his Creator, and who must make his approaches by creeping and cringing to intermediate beings, that he conceives either a contemptuous disregard for everything under the name of religion, or becomes indifferent, or turns what he calls devout. In the latter case, he consumes his life in grief, or the affectation of it; his prayers are reproaches; his humility is ingratitude; he calls himself a worm, and the fertile earth a dunghill; and all the blessings of life by the thankless name of vanities; he despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON; and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason, as if man could give reason to himself."
Let that suffice for the fake Deist. For Deism is and has always been a rejection of Christianity's immoral system. It has never been Christianity's defender!
The husband isn't allowed to beat the wife. He is sent to prison if he does so!
@ Anonymous
He is only sent to prison because SECULAR laws send him there--and only if his wife agrees to press charges.
Many wives in submissive positions refuse to press charges--and end up dead, but what is MOST IMPORTANT is where the mindset where women are submissive to men comes from in the first place; and where the mindset of people believing they are born bad, but that they will be unconditionally forgiven for their heinous deeds comes from in the first place--that would be CHRISTIANITY.
Holy Moly....you have issues. You need to see a shrink.
visible after approval. wtf?
Whoever created this blog is a dumbass, I'd kill you if I was an Athiest but since its against my religion I won't.
....The thing is your paragraph is completely wrong.. you are deciveing people about Christians by which I am fully and nothing will ever change my mind .. Yes we do believe we are born sinners but. God does not expect us to do bad he expects us to try our best to do right. and to pray t him to give us his help for I believe and we all believe anything is possible with God. if a man beats his wife she does not divorces him she forgives but she has many options 1. good reason to marry a Christian man although you can marry whom ever 2. get help so it dsent continue 3. pary to God he will help .. and we do have consequences its called the wrath of God and then theres also hell.. which all that stuff is for unbelievers as well.. I suggest you try learning about who we are before judging us .. besides if god didn't exsist who made us anddddd obviously santas fake.. do you get all offensive over him and start telling kids hes fake no.. so if Gods not real why make a huge deal out of it huh...
I was raised in the appalling Christian religion. It never taught me what real love looks like, or real morality. It was all about selfishness of trying to get to heaven in the easiest way possible (just pray this prayer and all your sins will be forgiven). Like you said, there was no help or justice for victims. The very foundation of Christianity is that the innocent must suffer on behalf of the guilty. That the bloodshed of the innocent is used to let the guilty go free. The system is completely immoral and disgusting and anyone with any real morality can see that. Yahweh is the most disgusting individual I ever heard of.
Post a Comment