Is Christianity moral or immoral?

[Too Few Lions]

rather unsurprisingly it's an immoral thumbs down from this chimp too. The New Testament teaches that Jesus is immanently going to return to Earth, destroy the planet in a huge conflagration, whisk believers away to heaven and let the rest of us burn alive. Well Mr Jesus, it's now 1900 years later, and I have to ask where the **** are you?

As far as I'm concerned any religion that teaches that their saviour will destroy the planet is wholly immoral, I'd add to that any religion that claims that theirs is the only true fantasy and all other gods are made-up devils, and that all non-believers will burn in hellfire is also immoral, as well as being highly dangerous.

[Xjeepguy]

Well Mr Jesus, it's now 1900 years later, and I have to ask where the **** are you?

That's right jesus, BRING IT!!! We're waiting...... That's what I thought.

[Too Few Lions]

Well Mr Jesus, it's now 1900 years later, and I have to ask where the **** are you?

That's right jesus, BRING IT!!! We're waiting...... That's what I thought.

'I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all. Heaven and earth will pass away; my words will never pass away.'

Yeah right Jesus. Turns out that pussy was all talk, just one of many religious nuts to claim the world was about to end!

[Stevil]

Turns out that pussy was all talk, just one of many religious nuts to claim the world was about to end!

It was an attention getting claim. Noone gave a toss about him at the time, despite his claim to miracles, I bet he never grew back someone's limb. He may not have even existed.
Benny Hinn is far more famous during his lifetime and we have his "miracles" documented on video. Now we just need to make a martyr of him and then he will become a legend like Jesus, only bigger and better.

BTW: I was just kidding, don't kill the guy, leave him alone, avoid him even.

[Too Few Lions]

Turns out that pussy was all talk, just one of many religious nuts to claim the world was about to end!

It was an attention getting claim. Noone gave a toss about him at the time, despite his claim to miracles, I bet he never grew back someone's limb. He may not have even existed.

yeah, I don't think he ever existed either. I like to think of Jesus as the Jewish Socrates, made up by Hellenised Jews who'd read a bit too much Plato and Greek mythology, and fancied creating a Jewish version of the Greek suffering hero.

[Will]

I must disagree. I made a fair case in my post above that shows otherwise. I think you need to show us how my case is wrong. Tell us how Christianity, in its basic doctrine/dogma/tenets (what have you) is amoral. Show us how compulsory love is amoral. Show us how a celestial, invisible, totalitarian dictatorship in which you have no say is amoral. Show us how vicarious atonement is amoral.

They're words in a book. It's not until they're applied to human beings that they can be judged by their consequences. Suggesting the Bible is immoral is like saying The Lord of the Rings is Immoral. They're words on a page, without intent or action.

[Stevil]

They're words in a book. It's not until they're applied to human beings that they can be judged by their consequences. Suggesting the Bible is immoral is like saying The Lord of the Rings is Immoral. They're words on a page, without intent or action.

But....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think sometimes we'd like to think that people are smart enough to see through some things, but I don't know. In that sense, immoral words in a book can be a problem, but it feels odd to say that a book or theology is immoral. The way I see it, morality is closely linked to human actions, not a belief system. The thing is, people follow their ideologies. By proxy you could say that a theology is immoral if the people who are following it are.

[Will]

But....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.

The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.

[Stevil]

But....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.

The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.

The people using them, the people authoring/publishing/distributing them, the people teaching them...
Especially when the teacher claims to be divinely guided and infallible and that if not followed the student will be tortured for eternity.

[Tank]

But....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.

The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.

The people using them, the people authoring/publishing/distributing them, the people teaching them...
Especially when the teacher claims to be divinely guided and infallible and that if not followed the student will be tortured for eternity.

I must say I'm with Will on this one. Words on a page have no impact until read. How dangerous, or otherwise, is a closed book on a shelf? Now the intent of the author may have been good or bad, but how the reader reacts to what is written is the responsibility of the reader and how they react will be influenced by their genes and upbringing. The words on the page are simply a transmission medium of ideas that may, or may not, be considered moral or immoral by the writer or reader dependent on their respective reasons for writing and reading.

Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.

[Stevil]

Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.

What if a photographer takes photos of scantily clad naked sexually posed children. Should the photographer be held accountable for anything?

[Tank]

Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.

What if a photographer takes photos of scantily clad naked sexually posed children. Should the photographer be held accountable for anything?

Note: The photographer is responsible for the images they produce, the image is not responsible for being taken, it can't be, it's an inanimate object.

[wildfire_emissary]

I think Christianity is immoral. Who in their right mind would want this world to be destroyed? Who are waiting for the destruction of the earth and its 'unChristianized' inhabitants? Who sees a silver lining in every atmospheric and geophysical catastrophe? Who rejoices when these tumultuous 'signs' are transpiring? The malevolence is overwhelmingly in favor of Christianity.

[Gawen]

Christianity is not a book.

The foundation of the belief system date with the beliefs of the ancients Jews, even before they were Jews through oral tradition. Doctrine is not an inanimate object. Christianity was not a book until well after the supposed central character was dead. People believed this stuff way before the book was written. Christianity is immoral as a belief system/worldview - even in its myriad consistencies of proto-Christianity. To say Christianity is amoral because it is written in a book is faulty thinking when you do not consider the immoral pre-published doctrines/dogma/tenets of Judaism and proto-Christian beliefs as the rocks in which Christianity was built upon.

The Bible is simply the immoral doctrine in written form instead of the immoral oral tradition (which came first) of those that believed it.