• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Core Message of Christianity

HansMustermann said:
Are you going to tell me that they got that from spirituality?
Click to expand...

I am not sure how one example argues the point, but anyway......

Consider balancing that against changing moralities. Roman society had a huge taboo against engaging in oral sex of any kind. Modern society does not. Conversely many Greek City states allowed relationships between men and boys that would see you today thrown in jail and on a sex offenders list

Then you need to consider other concepts that need to exist before a moral stand can even be made. Theft for instance needs an understanding of ownership. Some cultures on the planet only have a sense of communal ownership, so for one member to use an item, does not require permission. However if another member of the community has a greater need, the first person has to give up possession of the item
 
Except you're looking at things that are at different levels.

The instinct that doing X is bad, is hard wired in the brain. The rules and social constructs by which that is enforced, are at a whole other level.

The instinct to be a social animal and band together for protection is hard-wired in the brain. The rules and social constructs that allow us to live with each other, are at another level.

And then there are rules which really have nothing to do with more than the golden rule: whoever has the gold (and the mercenaries paid with it) makes the rules.

That's the same mistake that moral relativists do. They look at the fact that rule X or Y differed between cultures A and B and conclude that there's nothing objectively good about them, it's all artifficial rules.

But the reality is that they solve the same underlying problems and needs, which are hard-wired in the species itself. Even if in different ways. E.g., while the actual legal and social construct for, basically, "thou shalt not kill" might be different in different societies, the underlying needs and instincts that made it emerge are the same and exist in our DNA.

I think it's also useful to distinguish between moral sense -- which is that hard-wired instinct to try to be nice to each other -- and rules/laws which are artifficial constructs of society. Yes, an interdiction on oral sex may exist at one point, but that's a rule (secular, religious, doesn't matter) not a component of the innate moral sense. You can't deny one just because the _other_ is relative.

And a lot of the more abstract rules exist only as a result of our eventually organizing ourselves into groups of more than 150 people. That seems to be the neurological limit for everyone-knows-everyone as a factor for group cohesion, and primitive tribes seem to be genuinely limited around that village size. When the group grows above that, it splits into sub-groups and cliques and eventually just splits.

So we're seeing an evolution of laws and constructs to deal with that. Common property works well in such groups, because everyone knows everyone, and you know they'll bring that common item back, or you know where to find them when you need it too. But as we organize into groups like, say, the over a million of ancient Rome, that kind of cohesion doesn't work any more. So we invent other rules to allow the larger group to work.

But even there, I don't see why I'd credit religion or spirituality with it, when it's clearly just an effort of the human group to organize itself in a way that works for its members. And again, the driving force are the same underlying needs and instincts that are common to the whole human race. I don't see why you think we needed some god or great spirit to tell us to do that, when the needs and the problem to solve were there anyway.
 
HansMustermann said:
That's the same mistake that moral relativists do. They look at the fact that rule X or Y differed between cultures A and B and conclude that there's nothing objectively good about them, it's all artifficial rules.
Click to expand...

However the above point is exactly the reason I argue we are not hard wired for morals. Otherwise all cultures would have a similar moral template, which clearly we dont. Sadly I agree with you that many people make judgement of other moral codes, and always consider theirs to be superior

But the reality is that they solve the same underlying problems and needs, which are hard-wired in the species itself. Even if in different ways. E.g., while the actual legal and social construct for, basically, "thou shalt not kill" might be different in different societies, the underlying needs and instincts that made it emerge are the same and exist in our DNA.
Click to expand...

However one has to consider where the moral is an outgrowth of the orginal DNA coding. Example in monkeys, killing one of your own troop is seen as bad, and the offender can be shunned or even banished. If the same individual kills a member of another troop they are a hero. In society we have evolved that concept, killing any member of any troop is considered very bad. And thats the element I believe is the independent moral growth of hardwired behaviour.

But even there, I don't see why I'd credit religion or spirituality with it, when it's clearly just an effort of the human group to organize itself in a way that works for its members. And again, the driving force are the same underlying needs and instincts that are common to the whole human race. I don't see why you think we needed some god or great spirit to tell us to do that, when the needs and the problem to solve were there anyway.
Click to expand...

In a sense thats my orginal point. Spirituality does not need the existence of a higher spirit, only the belief one exists. We know that many neolithic cultures displayed this belief, and there seems to be example of funeral rites that dates well before that
 
The core message of Christianity is that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved.

Acts 16:30

30Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs,what must I do to be saved?" 31And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved
Click to expand...
Of course, belief is more than acceptance that something is true. The Bible is clear on that.

James 2

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Click to expand...
It always seems like former believers are the most aggressive in their dislike of Christianity. I was the same when I left Christianity. I think it's because they know the truth, and don't want to follow it. So we fill up with hate in order to block out what we know to be true.
 
hamelekim said:
The core message of Christianity is that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved.

Of course, belief is more than acceptance that something is true. The Bible is clear on that.

It always seems like former believers are the most aggressive in their dislike of Christianity. I was the same when I left Christianity. I think it's because they know the truth, and don't want to follow it. So we fill up with hate in order to block out what we know to be true.
Click to expand...

You just never miss an opportunity to jab, do you?

Monster
 
hamelekim said:
How so? I made a statement that is generally true. It wasn't a jab at anyone.
Click to expand...

I believe the OP asks for opinions on the core message of christianity, not on the opinions of the people who have left, hamelekim.

It always seems like former believers are the most aggressive in their dislike of Christianity. I was the same when I left Christianity. I think it's because they know the truth, and don't want to follow it. So we fill up with hate in order to block out what we know to be true.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the OP (and a jab...)


Monster
 
Last edited:
hamelekim said:
Addicts don't think they have a problem either. It takes others to point out that they have a problem.
Click to expand...
Ok.
You have a problem.

ETA: Oops, Darat beat me to it.
Perhaps we should hold an intervention?
 
MG1962 said:
LOL its funny. I nearly started my post with that exact comment. Did spirituality or morality come first. I tend to favour that spirituality did, simply because through history our moral codes have changed. I wont say evolved because I dont see the sort of finess I would expect

If however morailty was a wired element of the human condition, it should stay fairly constant
Click to expand...

But morality is extremely consistent -- you just have to frame the question correctly.

For example, you won't find a single group of humans -- anywhere, anytime -- that consider it acceptable for a human to murder another member of the same group in cold blood, or to take what does not belong to them from another member of the same group, or to rape a woman who is a member of the same group, etc.

In this respect it is pretty clear that not only are our core moral behaviors the result of evolution but also that we are indeed monkeys.
 
hamelekim said:
The core message of Christianity is that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what makes it so dangerous.

Take a good person and convince them that no matter what their neighbor is in danger, and needs to be saved, and only they can do it, and you produce a monster.
 
hamelekim said:
Addicts don't think they have a problem either. It takes others to point out that they have a problem.
Click to expand...

Yep, that goes for 'addicted to religion'

ETA that'll teach me to refresh properly before I post, 2 of ya beat me to it.
Also agree with Darat...I am not hate filled, and I don't hate something I dont believe in!
 
Last edited:
The core message of Christianity, as far as I can tell:

After being judged against an impossible standard based on things your ancestors did, it has been determined that you are a horrible person. You will always be a horrible person. You must apologize constantly for being a horrible person to the one who made you a horrible person. And even after apologizing you are still a horrible person.
 
Originally Posted by hamelekim
The core message of Christianity is that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved.
Click to expand...
Okay, well, here's where more clarification would be good. Do you agree or disagree with Ethnikos? I wish he would post here and state his beliefs clearly, because all we have to go on is what was said on another thread, but he did just say there that Catholics (and a great big undefined bunch of other Christians as well) were not saved, and were going to hell. Catholics do believe in Jesus. So what's your vote on where they're going to end up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom