Christianity made "Nice". Is it possible?

[Divine Insight]

Many modern day Christians are attempting to make a nicer God out of the Christian religion by discounting the concept of hell or eternal torment.

I suggest that this is futile for the following reasoning:

To begin with let's imagine that there is no "hell" where there will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth, etc. Of course we need to dismiss biblical references even made by Jesus himself concerning the idea of people being punished in tortuous ways.

Jesus however did say that people will go the way of "everlasting punishment". Those who reject the notion of hell simply suggest that death itself is an "everlasting punishment'. But even so, it's still being called a "punishment'.

Why should death be a punishment if someone is simply choosing death over living under this God's commandments for the rest of eternity? They are simply declining his offer. Why should they be "punished" for that? The mere fact that choosing anything other than total obedience to this God for eternity is being called "punishment" demands that this is precisely what it is, whether it's eternal torture or not is actually a moot point. It's still being decreed as a "punishment".

They even used terms like "damnation". Anyone who refuses to cower down to this God's demands will be damned. So this is still a very wrathful God even if there is no eternal torment involved.

This God's "wrath" is referred to many times all throughout the Bible. And for those who love Paul more than Jesus here's what Paul had to say about Jesus:

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Here Paul is saying that we have been "justified" by the blood of Jesus. Like somehow Jesus having been brutally beaten and nailed to a pole "justifies" our sins. Why should that be the case? Why should brutally beating an innocent demigod and nailing him to a pole "justify" our wrongdoings? On the contrary that very act should only add to the supposed sins of mankind, not subtract from them.

But more importantly look at what Paul says we have been saved from. We have been saved from "wrath" though Jesus.

So once again it's this God's wrath that we ultimately need to be "saved" from. And apparently this wrathful God was sufficiently pleased that we beat his son to a pulp and nailed him to a pole that he will accept this hostile brutal act, as atonement for all the other horrible things we might have done.

And only those who condone and accept this arrangement will be 'saved' from this God's wrath. All other will go the way or "everlasting punishment". Even if it's only death, it's still being deemed to be a "punishment" that is somehow deserved.

I suggest that there is no way to make a nice God out of Christianity. Even the removal of an eternal hell cannot save this religion from "God's Wrath".

Death itself then becomes a wrathful "punishment".

Question for Debate: Can Christianity be saved from portraying a hateful wrathful God, even by removing the concept of an eternal hell of torture?

Obviously my position is that it cannot be save. Even if death alone is deemed to be the "punishment" in this religion and referred to as "damnation", then death itself is being held up as a punishment that is somehow deserved by anyone who refuses to accept this God's relentless and unyielding demands.

I hold that the only way to make this God into a decent deity would be if it had actually offered the choice of death as a polite rejection of it's ultimatums. You can hardly hold death over people's heads as a "deserved punishment" and simultaneously claim that this justifies this creator.

I see this religion as nothing more than a very unethical cult that does nothing other than try to make out like everyone who refuses to join and support the cult somehow "deserves" to be damned, or whatever.

It's basically an extremely unethical cult. And of course Islam is pulling the same stunt with their Allah and Qur'an but that's a separate matter even though it's basically the same fundamental mythology just twisted in a slightly different way.

So again:

Question for Debate: Can Christianity be saved from portraying a hateful wrathful God, even by removing the concept of an eternal hell of torture?

[Mithrae]

.

I'm not asking you to pretend anything, merely pointing out that your reasons for suggesting that a 'nice' Christianity is nevertheless impossible seem to be grounded entirely in dogmatic fundamentalism towards the bible - a persistant refusal to simply let slide the things in it which you don't like.

If anyone can "let side the things in it [Christianity] which you don't like" can one "let slide" the miracle claims and stories, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, the Old Testament?

If so, what is left of Christianity?

An identity paradigm and link to history arguably more profound and less dangerous than nationalism?

An existential value system arguably more fulfilling and less destructive than consumerism?

An inspiration and example of love and self-sacrifice arguably more compelling than Harry Potter?

A community structure and support network arguably more worthwhile and less transient than the local pub?

If you're interested in liberal Christianity I'm sure there's plenty of resources out there to learn from. Bishop John Shelby Spong is one of the better-known advocates, from what I've heard, or on this forum if memory serves johnmarc and [strike]dbohm(?)[/strike] [edit: no, someone else, can't remember who] were the most articulate advocates I recall (and many of cnorman's posts on Judaism could be translated over to Christianity).

I'm not a Christian myself, and I am not advocating either a 'nice' Christianity or a miracle-free 'liberal' Christianity, merely pointing out in response to the OP that such possibilities obviously do exist.



Edit: Slopeshoulder was the other person I was thinking of, though he was rather intolerant towards more traditional views at times, and Kayky has made plenty of great posts also.

[Divine Insight]

If you're interested in liberal Christianity I'm sure there's plenty of resources out there to learn from.

The problem is that none of them are compelling.

Besides, even the "nicest" possible Christianity is necessarily highly negative and depressing. It has to be if it's going to remain consistent with the Biblical story at all.


Just look at the overall story Mithrae:

It starts off with humans supposedly "falling from grace" from God.

That's already a negative right there. There's no getting around it. Humanity is already in the doghouse with this God from the get go. And that includes everyone without exception. That is a very negative and depressing reality.

Things only go down hill after that until God had to supposedly drown out the bulk of humans and try to start over again with a very small family. But that doesn't do any good either.

Then he supposedly sacrifices his son to pay for our sins, and we're supposed to rejoice and than God for finally sending a scapegoat to let us off the hook from what was apparently an impossible feat to begin with.

Where is there anything positive in all of this?

Just because these fables supposedly avoid death?

Christians keep pointing to "Love your Neighbor" as the positive message of Christianity. But if that's it its still an extremely depressing paradigm.

I mean gee whiz we can love our neighbors without all the drama of being in doghouse with God and needing a scapegoat to pay for our sins.

I just don't see how it can possibly be made into a healthy positive picture.

At the very BEST we are so disgustingly immoral that we forced our creator to have to sacrifice his only begotten to be our scapegoat, and then we "as Christians" are supposed to rejoice in joy over this?

Are you kidding me? There shouldn't even be such a thing as a rejoicing Christian. Every Christian who actually believes in this story should be walking around with their head in a bucket to ashamed to show their face to anyone.

Why in the world would anyone REJOICE over the idea that our creator had to have his innocent Son brutally beaten to a pulp and nailed to a pole to pay for our in ability to be nice people?

I mean, seriously, if Christianity is true, it seems to me that we are living in the most depressing reality possible.

It seems to me that living in a purely accidental atheistic world would be far more worthy of rejoicing over. We may simply die when we die in that case, but wouldn't that be far better than being so disgusting that our creator had to have his only begotten son brutally butchered to pay for our evil attitude?

I just can't see a decent Christianity, I don't care how "liberal" it is, it's still a disgusting scenario.

I can't believe that anyone actually wants this picture of reality to be true.

I would think that any Christian who cares as much about Jesus as they claim would be thrilled to death to discover that they are not the least bit responsible for his crucifixion.

I just can't imagine a Christian who would actually be depressed to learn that Christianity is false. It seems to me that this would be the greatest news any Christian could ever hope to hear.

[1213]

The Bible uses the term "covenant", but a covenant is an agreement. Jesus didn't have any agreement with anyone, on the contrary he was apparently a dictator.

I think that is absurd claim, when Bible directly tells that Jesus made new covenant. It can be accepted by receiving his words and by taking part in Eucharist. I think I have accepted his covenant.

[Mithrae]

If you're interested in liberal Christianity I'm sure there's plenty of resources out there to learn from.

The problem is that none of them are compelling.

Besides, even the "nicest" possible Christianity is necessarily highly negative and depressing. It has to be if it's going to remain consistent with the Biblical story at all.


Just look at the overall story Mithrae:

It starts off with humans supposedly "falling from grace" from God.

That's already a negative right there. There's no getting around it. Humanity is already in the doghouse with this God from the get go. And that includes everyone without exception. That is a very negative and depressing reality.

A liberal Christian - in fact, any objective person interested in mythic interpretation - would probably ask why it is that this "knowledge of good and evil" is equated with a fall from grace. What was the difference between humanity before and after this 'fall'? What does it represent? Is there really any sense in which we could say that some state of innocence preceded agriculture ("In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread") and civilization?

Even in a world with all our modern conveniences there are still plenty of people who wish it were easier to 'get back to nature,' who feel that however good the progress of human society may ultimately be, it has nevertheless come at a cost. For millions of years our ancestors lived a much simpler and wilder life than we do, and I think that even now most of us at times feel at least a little out of place and disconnected from the rest of the natural world.

What did the original authors of Genesis actually intend? We can only guess; but they didn't have any real reason to think that there was a literal creation and Garden of Eden, did they? In contrast it's entirely probable that many folk in past civilized societies felt a similar sense of innocence lost as we do today.

It's strange how easy it is to recognise the meaning or 'deeper truths' - real or imagined - behind many of the myths of the Greeks, yet so difficult for some people to see them in the myths of the Hebrews, don't you think?


However negative and depressing you may find it to be, the fact that humanity is indeed imperfect is rather difficult to dispute, I think. At its best Christianity (or virtually any other religion) might offer stories, communities and ideals intended to help us both come to terms with, and strive to reach beyond the situation we find ourselves in: Stories about hope, and providence, and love, and ultimate justice, and forgiveness and grace and self-sacrifice and transformation. Some of them might even have really happened

[Divine Insight]

A liberal Christian - in fact, any objective person interested in mythic interpretation - would probably ask why it is that this "knowledge of good and evil" is equated with a fall from grace. What was the difference between humanity before and after this 'fall'? What does it represent? Is there really any sense in which we could say that some state of innocence preceded agriculture ("In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread") and civilization?

I don't think that's even a relevant question for a secularist. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with reality if your a secularist.

Even in a world with all our modern conveniences there are still plenty of people who wish it were easier to 'get back to nature,' who feel that however good the progress of human society may ultimately be, it has nevertheless come at a cost. For millions of years our ancestors lived a much simpler and wilder life than we do, and I think that even now most of us at times feel at least a little out of place and disconnected from the rest of the natural world.

Actually there are many secularists who are also avid naturalists. There is no reason why modern technology cannot go hand-in-hand with the natural world. The only reason there is a conflict, is not due to technological problems, but rather due to two far greater problems: Overpopulation, and Greed.

And greed is the result of people who don't care about nature. Also, people who don't care about nature surely wouldn't care about any God either. Yet how ironic is that because most of the people who greedily pollute the world are indeed religious people.

We most certainly don't need religion, or a belief in a God, in order to live in harmony with nature. In fact, I have personally tried to live in harmony with nature and my greatest obstacle is not technology but modern mans greed. And stupidity. Companies do not design products to be environmentally friendly. On the contrary they actually design them to be extremely environmentally unfriendly. And the reason for that is greed.

Technology is not the problem Greed and a total disregard for the natural world is the problem. And like I say, ironically religious people have traditionally been the very people who have total disregard for the natural world.

So religion doesn't even help in those matters, on the contrary it actually contributes to a mindset of complacency. The reason being that religious people often feel like "God" will take care of nature. In fact, I was listening to a show on NPR radio not long ago. I think it was Living on Earth where they were airing excerpts from U.S. politicians who were dismissing climate change as being anything we should be concerned about. Amazingly these politicians actually cited "God" as their reason for believing that God takes care of the climate, and it's not something we can have any control over one way or the other.

So there's a case where religion is actually being used as an excuse to now even think about our potential impact on nature or ecology. I think these politicians who hold these views are absolute idiots, but that's another story.

What did the original authors of Genesis actually intend? We can only guess; but they didn't have any real reason to think that there was a literal creation and Garden of Eden, did they? In contrast it's entirely probable that many folk in past civilized societies felt a similar sense of innocence lost as we do today.

Why should we even care what the original authors of Genesis had in mind? Why are we even concerned with Hebrew mythology at all? It shouldn't take much to realize that it's nothing more than superstitious nonsense. Just because they claim to have been speaking for a God should not require that we need to consider their thoughts and ideas.

In short, I couldn't care less what the authors of Genesis had in mind. I personally think they were most likely creating a story of a male-chauvinistic God with the intent to use their religion to keep their women under control. They were probably as ignorant as the Taliban and other Islamic extremists.

I saw a video once where Richard Dawkins was interviewing a Muslim extremist (a Forum citizen of the USA and Christian now converted to Islam). In that interview this Muslim extremist was chastising Richard Dawkins for not keeping "women under control" and allowing them to wear sexy close and expose their naked skin.

Why should this be so important to a Muslim man? Can he not control his sexual urges to the point where he has to blame his inability to control himself on the women? Muslim men are so extremely immature and unable to control their sexual urges that they feel they need to keep women covered just so they aren't tempted by sex.

Think about how utterly immature and ignorant that is. And that's probably what the authors of the Bible had in mind as well. They were just as immature and unable to control their own sexual urges so they tried to lay the blame on women.

That would be my assessment of the monkeys who wrote the Bible.

It's strange how easy it is to recognise the meaning or 'deeper truths' - real or imagined - behind many of the myths of the Greeks, yet so difficult for some people to see them in the myths of the Hebrews, don't you think?

We can all ponder and PROJECT our own personal meanings onto ancient myths. But what's the point in doing that? It's not going to justify the immature and immoral reactions of the Gods in those myths anyway.

However negative and depressing you may find it to be, the fact that humanity is indeed imperfect is rather difficult to dispute, I think.

But that's not what I find negative and depressing. If we evolved naturally as secularists believe then there is nothing negative or depressing about it. We just are what we are. In fact, if we evolved naturally I think, at least some of us, can be very pleased with how well we have evolved. And some of us have most certainly evolved far above the ancient Hebrews and their ignorant brutality.

What's depressing about Christianity is that Christianity claims that God DESIGNED us to be immoral creatures. And it also holds that we don't even have the ability to be moral on our own merit. Neither are we even given permission to make amends for things we believe we may have done wrong.

Christianity is totally hopeless. You can't be nothing more than a "failed soul" who needs to be saved from your impossible situation by the sacrificial blood of Christs. It's a totally hopeless situation. And one that you were actually DESIGNED to be in by your creator.

If evolution is true, I think at least some of us can feel pretty good in knowing that it's actually possible to evolved above the barbarism portrayed in the Bible.

In fact, just look around today. Where does most of the violence come from? It comes from religious people arguing over Gods. Almost all of the problems in the middle east have their foundation in religious differences.

At its best Christianity (or virtually any other religion) might offer stories, communities and ideals intended to help us both come to terms with, and strive to reach beyond the situation we find ourselves in: Stories about hope, and providence, and love, and ultimate justice, and forgiveness and grace and self-sacrifice and transformation. Some of them might even have really happened

But they don't. On the contrary they promise people hope in an AFTERLIFE, not here on earth.

In fact, these religions teach that there will be a rapture when Jesus will come and take up the righteous people and those who have accepted him as their savior leaving the damned here on earth.

There are actually Christians and Muslims who believe that they will never see heaven until this earth is destroyed. In fact, Christopher Hitchens has brought this up many times. He even claims that those who claim to be religious but don't believe in a final end of the world aren't really "believers" at all because they refuse to accept what these religious doctrines actually preach.

There is no reason for any Christian to be an ecologist or care about helping the earth to maintain a long healthy future. On the contrary, the sooner the earth is over with the better off they will be.

The destruction of the earth is God's Plan. Christians should be praying for the end of the world to come. The sooner the better for them.

[Mithrae]

In short, I couldn't care less what the authors of Genesis had in mind.

And yet (again) you were the one who brought it up. You care so little that you'll drag it into the discussion at every opportunity

You were the one who started the thread. But it's obvious (and of course has been all along) that your question was not genuine. You have no interest in seeing if a 'nice' Christianity is possible, only in dredging up anything and everything you think is nasty in your dogmatic fundamentalist approach to the bible and in practitioners of the religion.... just like you do in pretty much every single thread you post in. I guess if that's what constitutes a fulfilling life for you, more power to you

[Divine Insight]

In short, I couldn't care less what the authors of Genesis had in mind.

And yet (again) you were the one who brought it up. You care so little that you'll drag it into the discussion at every opportunity

You were the one who started the thread. But it's obvious (and of course has been all along) that your question was not genuine. You have no interest in seeing if a 'nice' Christianity is possible, only in dredging up anything and everything you think is nasty in your dogmatic fundamentalist approach to the bible and in practitioners of the religion.... just like you do in pretty much every single thread you post in. I guess if that's what constitutes a fulfilling life for you, more power to you

But it's not a "discussion" it's a debate. I'm taking the position that it's impossible.

Thus far you have not offered a viable option.

All you have suggested is that many people are simply willing to ignore the parts they don't like and pretend that it can be made into something it isn't.

What you would need to do if you want to make an argument for a "nice" Christianity is to suggest a way in which the entire bible can be taken for what it actually says, and argue a case for that story to be seen as something "nice".

I do claim that this is impossible to do. This is why I did not become a Christian preacher, precisely because I am convinced that it's impossible to make a "nice" story out of Christianity.

My position is the following:

Even if I'm going to ignore all the contradictions within the Bible and pretend that "God must have a valid explanation for them all that simply eludes us".
(an argument that is often used by Christian apologists and clergy I might add)

And even if I am willing to confess that none of the supernatural claims in the Bible can be confirmed or have any substantial evidence in support that they have ever actually occurred. (once again a position that is often held by apologists and clergy).

Then I would still need to ask my congregation or targets of evangelism to believe in all of this on nothing more than pure faith. (one more time a position that is often held by apologists and clergy).

Then what? What would be my evangelical answer to someone who asks me the following question:

"So why should I place my blind faith in a story that claims I'm at odds with my creator and he had to have his only begotten son brutally beaten and killed to pay for my sins?"

I mean seriously Mirthae, does that sound like something a person should be interested in placing their blind faith in?

What is "nice" about a story that claim that we are all a disgrace to our creator and he had to have his only begotten innocent son beaten and nailed to a pole to pay for our disgraceful existence?

I mean you could argue something to the effect of, "Well forget about all that negative stuff, just keep your eye on the gift of eternal life to paradise! That's the NICE part!

Is that it? Is that the "nice" part of Christianity? That if you believe in all the negative stuff and ignore the fact that you are supposedly responsible for your own creator having to have his innocent son butchered on a pole to pay for your sins at least you'll get a free ticket to paradise?

That seems to me to be an awfully superficial religion. And there also seems to be a lot of negative stuff there that needs to be ignored just to place our faith in the idea that we'll win a trip to paradise if we simply believe as a matter of pure faith.

This is like telling children that they are extremely bad and there is nothing they can do to make amends. But if they simply believe and accept that Santa Claus had Rudolf the Red-nosed reindeer butchered and roasted to pay for their bad behavior he'll still bring them gifts.

I think a lot of children would probably take Santa up on that offer actually. Mainly because children probably don't see anything immoral about scapegoating, and it's just a reindeer anyway.

But for adults to buy into a story like this as a matter of pure faith?

If I had a congregation who was buying into this story I'd be afraid of them. What else might they condone to save their own butts?

Someone needs to bring to people's attention that this is not a nice story to embrace on any level.

In fact, I would much rather be a secularist spokesperson who convinces people that this kind of scapegoating is immoral, than to be a "preacher" who actually goes around encouraging people to support this type of thinking.

So in that sense becoming an activist against theism is actually more desirable than becoming a preacher who encourages scapegoating as the basis for morality.

[Mithrae]

In short, I couldn't care less what the authors of Genesis had in mind.

And yet (again) you were the one who brought it up. You care so little that you'll drag it into the discussion at every opportunity

You were the one who started the thread. But it's obvious (and of course has been all along) that your question was not genuine. You have no interest in seeing if a 'nice' Christianity is possible, only in dredging up anything and everything you think is nasty in your dogmatic fundamentalist approach to the bible and in practitioners of the religion.... just like you do in pretty much every single thread you post in. I guess if that's what constitutes a fulfilling life for you, more power to you

But it's not a "discussion" it's a debate. I'm taking the position that it's impossible.

Thus far you have not offered a viable option.

All you have suggested is that many people are simply willing to ignore the parts they don't like and pretend that it can be made into something it isn't.

What you would need to do if you want to make an argument for a "nice" Christianity is to suggest a way in which the entire bible...

...was written by humans.

It's a radical, truly absurd viewpoint, I know You seem completely unable to wrap your head around it.

But that's what it takes: An acknowledgement the bible is a somewhat arbitrary collection of a bunch of different ancient people's mythical, historical, political, moral and spiritual experiences and wisdom (or sometimes lack thereof). Some of it might be inspiring or even instructive, some of it obviously is not. A 'nice' Christianity, in the eye of whatever beholder you choose to name, would be one in which the 'nice' bits are emphasised and the nasty bits left to slide. And far from being a wholesale cherry-picking exercise, I think most people would agree that the themes of justice, forgiveness, grace, selflessness and above all love - which is repeatedly emphasised in the bible as the central and most important aspect of Christianity - are not particularly nasty.

Unfortunately, based on the evidence of this discussion, you seem utterly incapable of dragging yourself out of the fundamentalist viewpoint: And I've already conceded that from that perspective, you won't be able to make much sense of anything.

[Wootah]

In short, I couldn't care less what the authors of Genesis had in mind.

And yet (again) you were the one who brought it up. You care so little that you'll drag it into the discussion at every opportunity

You were the one who started the thread. But it's obvious (and of course has been all along) that your question was not genuine. You have no interest in seeing if a 'nice' Christianity is possible, only in dredging up anything and everything you think is nasty in your dogmatic fundamentalist approach to the bible and in practitioners of the religion.... just like you do in pretty much every single thread you post in. I guess if that's what constitutes a fulfilling life for you, more power to you

But it's not a "discussion" it's a debate. I'm taking the position that it's impossible.

Thus far you have not offered a viable option.

All you have suggested is that many people are simply willing to ignore the parts they don't like and pretend that it can be made into something it isn't.

What you would need to do if you want to make an argument for a "nice" Christianity is to suggest a way in which the entire bible...

...was written by humans.

It's a radical, truly absurd viewpoint, I know You seem completely unable to wrap your head around it.

But that's what it takes: An acknowledgement the bible is a somewhat arbitrary collection of a bunch of different ancient people's mythical, historical, political, moral and spiritual experiences and wisdom (or sometimes lack thereof). Some of it might be inspiring or even instructive, some of it obviously is not. A 'nice' Christianity, in the eye of whatever beholder you choose to name, would be one in which the 'nice' bits are emphasised and the nasty bits left to slide. And far from being a wholesale cherry-picking exercise, I think most people would agree that the themes of justice, forgiveness, grace, selflessness and above all love - which is repeatedly emphasised in the bible as the central and most important aspect of Christianity - are not particularly nasty.

Unfortunately, based on the evidence of this discussion, you seem utterly incapable of dragging yourself out of the fundamentalist viewpoint: And I've already conceded that from that perspective, you won't be able to make much sense of anything.

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
- you seem utterly incapable of dragging yourself out of the fundamentalist viewpoint

- You seem completely unable to wrap your head around it.

Please don't refer to other posters and your perception of their capabilities.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.