Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Minimalist]

[Lek]

You're going totally counter to what atheists have been telling me since I started on this forum. I've been told that an atheist doesn't necessarily hold the position that there is positively no God, but rather has not been convinced that there is one. Atheism isn't a religion that has any beliefs to share. Atheists have zillions of opinions that are in disagreement with other atheists. The same with groups of scientists. They may all share the belief that humans came about through an evolutionary process, but disagree over many of the details. Christians are people too and we also disagree about many details. We don't have to agree. It doesn't change the fact that we're all christians.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, Lek, they tell us lots of things. I don't buy the "lack of belief" schtick. It's a dodgy way to deny their incredulity.

[Odoital77]

There's a lot of debate nowadays between Christians and skeptics over whether faith is a good or rational basis for belief and it seems that generally speaking Christians today (more so than in the past) are so timid to the point of just wanting to have the foundation of faith tolerated as a basis for belief and not mocked.

To me the peculiar thing about this is that up until very recently Christianity was saturated in an arrogance that still exists, but is not nearly articulated as much as it used to be, and this arrogance is basically that it is not only reasonable to have faith in their religion, but that we have a moral obligation to have faith in their religion.

It would be one thing to say: "I know we can't really prove the truth of our religion and that it requires faith, but if you simply aren't convinced of Christianity, it won't be held against you, no harm no foul". In reality however the Christian message is essentially this: "You owe us your belief, you owe it to us to have faith in our religion in all of its aspects and obey it in every respect it demands obedience in; if you fail to fulfill this moral obligation you will suffer unimaginable horrors for all eternity."

Christians still believe this today but often try to camouflage this fundamental arrogance in Christianity by appealing to pluralistic ideals, saying you don't have to believe if you don't want to and can believe or disbelieve what you like (leaving out the part that God is apparently so offended by this unbelief that you will be tormented for eternity).

Coming to this realization was one of the biggest moments in my de-conversion process as I actually started getting quite angry at the thought that I was being needlessly controlled by a Church that impressed upon me from childhood the idea that I owed them everything. The onus was on me to give the Church my faith, and my obedience in all things they demanded, and to surrender my future and all it would entail, even to the extent of surrendering my own future children by handing them over to the rites and indoctrination of the Church, repeating the process over again in a new generation. 

Ultimately, when one is trapped in such a web of religious arrogance, it is a revolutionary act simply to say: no, the onus is not on me to have faith in what you say and I don't owe you my belief. The onus is on you to provide reasons for belief that justify the extraordinary claims and demands your religion places on people.

I'm genuinely mystified by what you've written here.  I've been a Christian for 36 years, and a serious one, of sorts, for the last 20, and much of what you've said that Christians believe is completely foreign to me.  In re-reading it, I think I can make some tenuous connection to it, but it's been so twisted and re-stated to make Christians seem far more arrogant and militant than they or their beliefs would actually make them in reality.

First, yes, it is reasonable to have faith.  Second, yes, you are morally obliged to put your faith in God.  However, your moral obligation is not to me and not to the Christian religion.  Your moral obligation is to God, and Him alone.  Everyone is morally obliged to obey their Creator.  In fact, if the God of the Bible actually exists, then this would seem to be a pretty uncontroversial claim, would it not?

You owe us (i.e. Christians), absolutely nothing, in terms of belief.  Any obligation you have is owed specifically to God, not to me, Christians, or the Christian religion.  It is impossible, by way of the human will, to fulfill our moral obligations to God, which is why every single human being is considered to be a sinner, in the context of a Christian understanding of human nature and the fall of mankind.  This is specifically why God has provided a way of escape through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which paid for the sins of all mankind and is efficacious to those who accept this free gift.  If you reject this free gift and decide to make restitution for your crimes against God yourself, then yes, you will do so in a place and state of suffering for all eternity.  Eternal punish is the only kind of punishment adequate for a finite creature to pay restitution to an infinite God.  Just tangentially, this is not that unusual, apart from the expanded time-scales that we often have a hard time grasping, but we do this kind of thing all the time in our own punishment systems.  We punish people for their entire lives for acts which often took them mere seconds to carry out.  And sometimes, depending on the country, we even take their lives, based on the heinous nature of their crimes.  And keep in mind, that this is punishment for a single crime often times.  In the case of your being punished by God, we're likely talking about hundreds of thousands or even multiple millions of crimes that you've committed each and every day of your life.  I know I would certainly be guilty of crimes in the millions.  The longer I live, the more aware I am of just how much I fall short of God's standard, and that's taking into account that I see myself far less clearly than God does.

I can only apologize for your experience in some kind of church.  It bears little or no resemblance to what I know of as Christianity.  I would suggest that you've experienced only a narrow slice of an expression of Christianity, and I'm not sure how much veracity to put into that particular expression.  It seems rather far from anything in my experience.

I agree, Christians must be ready to provide reasons for belief.  I think the existence of a supreme mind or intelligence is obvious from what exists.  I also think that the existence of such a being is the best explanation for the beginning of the Universe and its contents.  I also think that the existence of God is the only way to ground true objective morality, which I firmly believe is a rock-solid feature of the world, regardless of our various levels of understanding and wisdom in application.  I also think that God's existence is the best explanation for the Bible and the basic historical narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, including his resurrection from the dead.  I think good solid arguments can be constructed for all of these things and more, and that believing in the God of the Bible is far more reasonable and rational than the extant alternatives, especially if we're talking about materialism/naturalism.

I hope your anger subsides over time, and that you'll eventually have different experiences with Christians that will not leave you so hurt and hostile.  Be well.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Hello Odoital77.  I appreciate the thoughtful response to the op.  If I may, I have some questions for you.

I agree, Christians must be ready to provide reasons for belief.  I think the existence of a supreme mind or intelligence is obvious from what exists.  I also think that the existence of such a being is the best explanation for the beginning of the Universe and its contents.

I appreciate and respect that this is representative of your views/beliefs.  However, out of curiosity, is this an actual explanation? Could it possibly be seen as the product of a human tendency to prescribe causal agency to complex matters that we currently have no answers to?  Furthermore, by ascribing the beginning of the universe to a supreme mind/intelligence, deity, and etc, then is humanity ultimately inhibiting the growth in thought/knowledge that is requisite to answer complex questions pertaining to matters that we do not understand, such as the meaning of humanity's existence, the nature of reality, and etc?

 

I also think that the existence of God is the only way to ground true objective morality, which I firmly believe is a rock-solid feature of the world, regardless of our various levels of understanding and wisdom in application.

If such a life-form existed, then would the morality connected with it be completely objective or non-consequential? Is it possible that it also needs to make use of various consequentialist ethical approaches in order to know what, when, and how to create/design stuff, especially if its creations will affect reality and the various forms of life in it? Is it possible that this lifeform still needs to rely on some degree of ethical subjectivity?

With that said, thanks for your time and attention.  Live long and prosper, Odoital77.

[Harry Nevis]

First, yes, it is reasonable to have faith.  Second, yes, you are morally obliged to put your faith in God.  However, your moral obligation is not to me and not to the Christian religion.  Your moral obligation is to God, and Him alone.  Everyone is morally obliged to obey their Creator.  In fact, if the God of the Bible actually exists, then this would seem to be a pretty uncontroversial claim, would it not?

I can't see how it's reasonable.  If there was sufficient evidence for god, you would't need faith.  If there is not sufficient evidence, it's wishful thinking.

You owe us (i.e. Christians), absolutely nothing, in terms of belief.  Any obligation you have is owed specifically to God, not to me, Christians, or the Christian religion.  It is impossible, by way of the human will, to fulfill our moral obligations to God, which is why every single human being is considered to be a sinner, in the context of a Christian understanding of human nature and the fall of mankind.  This is specifically why God has provided a way of escape through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which paid for the sins of all mankind and is efficacious to those who accept this free gift.  If you reject this free gift and decide to make restitution for your crimes against God yourself, then yes, you will do so in a place and state of suffering for all eternity.  Eternal punish is the only kind of punishment adequate for a finite creature to pay restitution to an infinite God.  Just tangentially, this is not that unusual, apart from the expanded time-scales that we often have a hard time grasping, but we do this kind of thing all the time in our own punishment systems.  We punish people for their entire lives for acts which often took them mere seconds to carry out.  And sometimes, depending on the country, we even take their lives, based on the heinous nature of their crimes.  And keep in mind, that this is punishment for a single crime often times.  In the case of your being punished by God, we're likely talking about hundreds of thousands or even multiple millions of crimes that you've committed each and every day of your life.  I know I would certainly be guilty of crimes in the millions.  The longer I live, the more aware I am of just how much I fall short of God's standard, and that's taking into account that I see myself far less clearly than God does.

Bad analogy.  We know what the laws are.  We know why they're enacted. there is a correlation between the law and the punishment. If god punishes eternally for sins we can't avoid, then how are we morally obliged to him?  It's monsterous, and if he exists and would do such a thing, he deserves only contempt.

[Minimalist]

You're going totally counter to what atheists have been telling me since I started on this forum.  I've been told that an atheist doesn't necessarily hold the position that there is positively no God, but rather has not been convinced that there is one.  Atheism isn't a religion that has any beliefs to share.  Atheists have zillions of opinions that are in disagreement with other atheists.  The same with groups of scientists.  They may all share the belief that humans came about through an evolutionary process, but disagree over many of the details.  Christians are people too and we also disagree about many details.  We don't have to agree.  It doesn't change the fact that we're all christians.

The repeated failure of religious shitheads - of any stripe - to provide any evidence at all for their fairy tales has convinced me that you are all bullshit artists willfully deluding yourselves with notions of assorted 'gods.'  I consider the matter closed.

Which is not to say that if any of you actually come up with evidence I would not evaluate it.  But I am not holding my breath.

The ball is in your court.  Provide evidence for your bullshit or STFU.

[ukatheist]

I'm genuinely mystified by what you've written here.  I've been a Christian for 36 years, and a serious one, of sorts, for the last 20, and much of what you've said that Christians believe is completely foreign to me.  In re-reading it, I think I can make some tenuous connection to it, but it's been so twisted and re-stated to make Christians seem far more arrogant and militant than they or their beliefs would actually make them in reality.

Hi!

First, yes, it is reasonable to have faith. 

Faith = belief based on spiritual conviction, rather than proof, or in other words feelsies rather than evidence. Is it reasonable for me to have faith in leprechauns? To base laws on what I think will please the little green fellas?

Second, yes, you are morally obliged to put your faith in God.  However, your moral obligation is not to me and not to the Christian religion.  Your moral obligation is to God, and Him alone.  Everyone is morally obliged to obey their Creator.  In fact, if the God of the Bible actually exists, then this would seem to be a pretty uncontroversial claim, would it not?

Now hang on a second, everyone is morally obliged to obey their creator? Based on who's morality? The xtian god's? Allah? Buddha? Odin? What if your 'creator' ordered you to murder or rape?

You owe us (i.e. Christians), absolutely nothing, in terms of belief.  Any obligation you have is owed specifically to God, not to me, Christians, or the Christian religion.  It is impossible, by way of the human will, to fulfill our moral obligations to God, which is why every single human being is considered to be a sinner, in the context of a Christian understanding of human nature and the fall of mankind. 

So, your God set up his creation to fail. Nice guy, definitely a good moral example.

This is specifically why God has provided a way of escape through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which paid for the sins of all mankind and is efficacious to those who accept this free gift. 

If a 'gift' has strings attached, it's not free. And why does your God have to go through such a convoluted method of granting escape from sin, which as you said before, he made it impossible to avoid in the first place?

If you reject this free gift and decide to make restitution for your crimes against God yourself, then yes, you will do so in a place and state of suffering for all eternity.  Eternal punish is the only kind of punishment adequate for a finite creature to pay restitution to an infinite God. 

So, if you don't accept the 'free' gift of escaping the sin which your god made it impossible to avoid, you are punished for eternity. Yep, great moral example.

Just tangentially, this is not that unusual, apart from the expanded time-scales that we often have a hard time grasping, but we do this kind of thing all the time in our own punishment systems.  We punish people for their entire lives for acts which often took them mere seconds to carry out.  And sometimes, depending on the country, we even take their lives, based on the heinous nature of their crimes.  And keep in mind, that this is punishment for a single crime often times. 

Only, it isn't only about punishment, it is also about rehabilitation and societal protection too. But...we don't punish people for crimes committed by their great, great, great etc grandfather now do we?

In the case of your being punished by God, we're likely talking about hundreds of thousands or even multiple millions of crimes that you've committed each and every day of your life.  I know I would certainly be guilty of crimes in the millions.  The longer I live, the more aware I am of just how much I fall short of God's standard, and that's taking into account that I see myself far less clearly than God does.

No, not crimes, sins. Things which according to your holy book are offensive to God. Like wearing mixed fabric or eating shellfish.

I can only apologize for your experience in some kind of church.  It bears little or no resemblance to what I know of as Christianity.  I would suggest that you've experienced only a narrow slice of an expression of Christianity, and I'm not sure how much veracity to put into that particular expression.  It seems rather far from anything in my experience.

Try spending a little time reading around the forum, you'll see just how common it is.

I agree, Christians must be ready to provide reasons for belief.  I think the existence of a supreme mind or intelligence is obvious from what exists.  I also think that the existence of such a being is the best explanation for the beginning of the Universe and its contents.  I also think that the existence of God is the only way to ground true objective morality, which I firmly believe is a rock-solid feature of the world, regardless of our various levels of understanding and wisdom in application.  I also think that God's existence is the best explanation for the Bible and the basic historical narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, including his resurrection from the dead. 

Based on what?

I think good solid arguments can be constructed for all of these things and more, and that believing in the God of the Bible is far more reasonable and rational than the extant alternatives, especially if we're talking about materialism/naturalism.

Please, do share!

I hope your anger subsides over time, and that you'll eventually have different experiences with Christians that will not leave you so hurt and hostile.  Be well.

We shall see !

[Odoital77]

Kernel Sohcahtoa wrote - Hello Odoital77.  I appreciate the thoughtful response to the op.  If I may, I have some questions for you.
Odoital77 quoted - I agree, Christians must be ready to provide reasons for belief.  I think the existence of a supreme mind or intelligence is obvious from what exists.  I also think that the existence of such a being is the best explanation for the beginning of the Universe and its contents.

Kernel Sohcahtoa wrote -I appreciate and respect that this is representative of your views/beliefs.  However, out of curiosity, is this an actual explanation? Could it possibly be seen as the product of a human tendency to prescribe causal agency to complex matters that we currently have no answers to?  Furthermore, by ascribing the beginning of the universe to a supreme mind/intelligence, deity, and etc, then is humanity ultimately inhibiting the growth in thought/knowledge that is requisite to answer complex questions pertaining to matters that we do not understand, such as the meaning of humanity's existence, the nature of reality, and etc?

I suppose that what you say is at least possible, but many things are possible.  The questions that must be answered are things like, is that plausible?  Do we have good reason to believe what you’re saying versus what I’ve said?  I actually don’t think that what you’ve suggested is all that plausible.  I think human beings are wired in some sense, to be able to recognize design versus a simple pattern or mere randomness.  In addition, I’m not suggesting that we look at what’s been made, and say to ourselves, I don’t know how this came about, so God must have done it.  I think it’s quite the other way around.  I think you can lean on your bonafide knowledge and reason from there that a mind was behind it.  I’m not a philosopher, theologian, scientist, or significant expert of any kind, but certain things seem obvious even to someone like myself.  When I see a quadrinary code that exists and is translated into instructions that form the very basis for life, I have a hard time not ascribing intelligence to such a thing.   And of course, by life, I’m referring to its diversity, its complexity, its beauty, purpose, etc…  Leave aside aesthetic questions of beauty, which cannot be scientifically proven, where does purpose actually come from?  Can you really say that a male and female sexual organ have no purpose in coming together?  Or do they possess a purpose and actually come together to achieve a definite end(s)?  In reflecting upon these kinds of things that can be seen and known, it is hard for me to say that I’m positing something out of ignorance or as a filler for the same.  Typically, I’m reasoning from what I know rather than from what I do not know.  I don’t know why the idea of a vast intelligence being behind the creation we see would somehow inhibit the growth of thought or knowledge.  I’m wondering, do the Chinese feel inhibited when they are attempting to reverse engineer U.S. technology and figure out how it works and how it was made?  Obviously, that’s an analogy that is quite inadequate to describe a far more vast and complex creation of various biological and non-biological varieties, but I hope you get the point I’m attempting to make?  I’m sympathetic to your concern over a God of the gaps sort of reasoning that might be used to stifle inquiry, but I honestly don’t think that’s what I’m suggesting at all.  I’m suggesting that we start from what we know and what our repeated and uniform experience tells us is the best explanation for the kinds of things that we see in this world.

Odoital77 quoted –I also think that the existence of God is the only way to ground true objective morality, which I firmly believe is a rock-solid feature of the world, regardless of our various levels of understanding and wisdom in application.
Kernel Sohcahtoa wrote -If such a life-form existed, then would the morality connected with it be completely objective or non-consequential? Is it possible that it also needs to make use of various consequentialist ethical approaches in order to know what, when, and how to create/design stuff, especially if its creations will affect reality and the various forms of life in it? Is it possible that this lifeform still needs to rely on some degree of ethical subjectivity?

With that said, thanks for your time and attention.  Live long and prosper, Odoital77.

If morality is an expression of this Being’s essential nature, then I would say that it is objective.  I’m not certain as to what, precisely, you mean by consequentialist.  If you mean the morality of something being determined by its consequences, I’d have to say no.  The application of the moral law is affected by circumstances, but the rightness or wrongness of something is not determined by its consequences.  That’s why I say that the moral law would have to be grounded in the nature of the Being Itself.  Morality is not anterior to God or logically prior to Him, but it is rooted in His being.  Something is not moral because God commands it, but God will always command moral things because His commands are the expression of His perfectly good nature.  Hopefully that makes sense?

 
Thanks for the very interesting response.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't our own human moralities then...if they were expressions of our nature...also be objective and for the same reason? Couldn't we also say, similarly, that morality is neither anterior to human beings or logically prior to human beings...but that it is rooted in our being? That something is not good because we command it, but that we command moral things because such commands are expressions of our own good nature?

Welcome aboard, btw.