The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Christian Ethics

Christian Ethics
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Monday, July 14 2008, 22:09:58 (CEST)
from *** - *** Non-Profit Organizations - Linux - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

The Christian ethic, insofar as it is uniquely Christian, has little to do with love, generosity, kindness, self-sacrifice. When Christians think of their religion they think of it as having brought these wonderful qualities into existence...as if they were never heard of before Jesus. That’s not only arrogant but false.

The actual ethics of Christianity are centered in crime. Crime as religion. And barbarism.

The heart and soul of any religion is contained in what is unique about it...not in what it shares with other religions. Filial obedience isn’t Christian...it’s nearly universal. Same with condemnations of murder....theft...or adultery. No society can hope to maintain itself if it teaches selfishness, murder, theft and adultery. These have been condemned by all societies and all religions and are hardly “Christian”.

Neither does any society or religion teach or condone cannibalism. Only Christianity does that.

Arrow says that the resurrection is the point of Christianity, not the crucifixion...not murder. But the whole point of the ressurection isn’t rising from any old death such as a natural death brought on by old age, or disease or accident. The resurrection only has meaning if Christ is murdered and dies a horrible death. Not even simple beheading would do...too swift and painless. Rather something like Mel Gibson pictured it was required; a good dose of torture and humiliation and then an agonizing, slow death. If the resurrection was all that mattered, it would have been sufficient, certainly more humane, to wait for Jesus to die a natural death...his rising from the dead would hardly have been less significant if he’d died of pneumonia instead of being murdered...as far as a resurrection goes. What would be the difference...if the whole point, as arrow maintains, was his resurrection? Why should it matter that Jesus had to die a horrible and premature death? I don’t know, but clearly it matters a great deal.

The benefit of eternal life could still have been forthcoming as a simple gift from God for following Jesus....why murder?

It was imperative that Jesus be KILLED...not that he “die”. An unnatural death is required for the resurrection to have the meaning it does...preferably a gruesome and cruel one. Therefore the manner of death is all-important. Jesus HAD to be killed...merely dying wasn’t enough. The miracle of the resurrection would have been just as miraculous and worthy of note if God had waited for Jesus to die a natural death...but he couldn’t wait and neither could Christianity.

Therefore the manner of death, the execution and murder of Jesus, is THE point of the story. He would have ‘arisen” in any case...even if he tripped while drunk and broke his neck or caught the flu....he still would have flown to Heaven. Why the insistence on murder? Why the execution? Why the torture and torment?

If Adam sinned, then punish Adam. If people were damned forever after because of Adam, then punish the people. Although it makes little sense and would be immoral and illegal on earth; to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. But spare Adam and the people to punish your own innocent son? This is barbarism not religion.

Christian ethics, the thing that makes Christianity unique, among modern religions especially, consist of either crimes or barbarisms.

Despite all apologies and explanations it remains true that the Catholics and Orthodox, numbering in the billions, believe that the flesh and blood are real. It may look like bread and wine...it may even start out as bread and wine...but it is miraculously transformed by the priest into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Believing Christians would have it no other way and would be horrified to think it remained bread and wine when they swallowed it. For centuries any Christian who believed differently was put to death. Later-day Christians disagree, but that doesn’t change the beliefs of billions of them...and for a good 1,500 years this was the only interpretation allowed to Christians.

Needless to say cannibalism and vampirism are not only crimes but among the most condemned behaviors in history. Why make them “ethical”? Why make them a part of a religion?

The other great crime taught as part of Christian ethics and unique to Christianity, and only Christianity, is the idea of benefiting from the murder of an Innocent...or anyone. No Christian alive today, if he or she had the power, would have spared Jesus. If the Jews and Romans “killed” Jesus back then...every believing Christian is as happy as can be that they did so. Not because they’re bloodthirsty or lacking in natural human decency...but because the religion is set up this way. In order to get its most cherished benefit, Jesus had to be murdered...dying naturally would not have done the trick. Therefore to accept the goods, either gold watch, robe or eternal life which can ONLY come as a result of his murder, makes each beneficiary an accessory-after-the-fact to murder.

If you accept benefits from the murder of someone, you are as guilty, in the eyes of man’s law, as those who do the killing. It has to be that way or else the incentives to get rid of people to possess their property would destroy social order and give license to criminal behavior. Which, oddly enough, describes a good deal of “Christian” behavior since the beginning. No one has any doubt that Iraq was attacked for no good reason, rather because of lies and deceit...same as with the war on the people of Vietnam. But even with that example, and all we know about what was really behind the attack on Iraq, Christian nations have no qualms about continuing their unjust and illegal war...most likely because there are benefits to be had from the murder of innocent people...and Christians feel no remorse or doubts about such things.

After all, Jesus was far more “innocent” than any Iraqi child...and if it was okay to benefit from his murder...why weep over mere children? Especially “heathen” ones? Where there are supreme benefits, the Christian has much more than normal human frailty or wickedness urging him on...he has a “religion”...a “moral code” that justifies the taking of innocent lives where great benefits can accrue. Remember; no modern Christian would save Jesus from the Cross...to do so would condemn their own soul and the souls of their children and parents to everlasting damnation. That’s the religion...that’s what’s truly “unique” about Christianity.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9