Urgently Needed Reform in Christianity

[Exarch]

it doesnt matter which church, as they all are, christianity desperately needs reform. Christianity as it stands today is an epic monstrosity of intolerance, bigotry, hatred, racism and worst of all, hypocrisy.
CHristianity msut reform via the following:

1) the bible must be reformed; parts extolling violence, illegal acts, mass rape, human rights abuses, racism, ethnocentrism etc etc must be cut out and done away with. this isnt censorship as these parts will never be considered canon ever again. Most importantly, the part where jesus thinks his is the onyl way must also be cut out. how would he know anyway?

2) the promotion of the torture device of the cross must be abolished; as should the whole crucifixion thing. i dont think it's appropriate for chyildren to be watching or even worshipping such . it's disturbing and will no doubt impact negatively on their growth.

3) since jesus so famously said 'render unto caesar that which is caesar's etc etc', no church should ever be rich or wealthy; a nice shed should do just fine in spreading the gospel. anything else would be hypocrisy and must be purged with fire. yes, that means that priceless church gold must be melted down to fund scientific research like new cures and stem cell research. i'll make exceptions to some historical artefacts and places but the majority must go. same with church funds, which brings me to...

4) the vatican state must become aprt of the italian nation, vatican city state will be abolished and all their properties and $$$ to go into funding either the deficit or scientific/health research. i'll make exceptions to monasteries who wish to live in seclusion. they who live by christ's example of poverty and humility and isolationism will not be molested.

5) all churches, even the ones which are jsut tin sheds should be taxed 80% to ensure that any donations go to where they can really do some good: funding sci tech education.

6) missionising to be heavily restricted, i find it hypocritical and disgusting this endless proselytising on the part of all christians, especially mormons and born again christians. if these ppl bothered to live their religion rather than trying to spread their propaganda/brainwashing around, perhaps i'd have a little more respect for them.

7) Since christians dont regard this life as being anything 'real' or significant (given their obsession with the afterlife) then they wouldnt at all mind giving up their organs for other needier patients. For a christian to refuse is hypocritical and they should immediately admit that they aren't christian or should just shut up and allow the surgeons to cut them open.

more to come....and witness the hypocrisy of the christian religion as christians here try to justify their hate filled religion, their obscene clingign onto $$ etc etc.

[Chaigidel]

churches which solicit money by way of advertising ( as with the "evangelical charismatics") should be taxed like any other business.

[Sebdeas]

Dude, there is a church for almost every word in the bible.
Take your pick.

[Exarch]

Dude, there is a church for almost every word in the bible.
Take your pick.

they must ALL be made subject to these much needed reforms

there is a cancer in christianity and it must be rooted out

[black-dragon]

The problem being that any reform for the better will ultimately make Christianity un-Christian.

[VALIS]

Just scrap it all. There, problems solved.

[Djûn]

... I'm certain we had a thread about this a few weeks ago...

2) the promotion of the torture device of the cross must be abolished; as should the whole crucifixion thing. i dont think it's appropriate for chyildren to be watching or even worshipping such . it's disturbing and will no doubt impact negatively on their growth.

Right... Remove the idea of the cross from Christianity...

3) since jesus so famously said 'render unto caesar that which is caesar's etc etc', no church should ever be rich or wealthy; a nice shed should do just fine in spreading the gospel. anything else would be hypocrisy and must be purged with fire. yes, that means that priceless church gold must be melted down to fund scientific research like new cures and stem cell research. i'll make exceptions to some historical artefacts and places but the majority must go. same with church funds, which brings me to...

4) the vatican state must become aprt of the italian nation, vatican city state will be abolished and all their properties and $$$ to go into funding either the deficit or scientific/health research. i'll make exceptions to monasteries who wish to live in seclusion. they who live by christ's example of poverty and humility and isolationism will not be molested.

5) all churches, even the ones which are jsut tin sheds should be taxed 80% to ensure that any donations go to where they can really do some good: funding sci tech education.

Where does this 80% come from? Taxing the Church more than twice the amount of high-rate income tax in the UK and almost four times that of any corporation tax. We get it, you love science. We don't force charities to pay extortionate amounts to fund something they may not be supportive of, so why the Church? Apparently the fact that they are allegedly made out of gold and diamond.

6) missionising to be heavily restricted, i find it hypocritical and disgusting this endless proselytising on the part of all christians, especially mormons and born again christians. if these ppl bothered to live their religion rather than trying to spread their propaganda/brainwashing around, perhaps i'd have a little more respect for them.

Do you even realise why people go out to convert others? Their belief is that without believing in Christ, you cannot be saved. By teaching people these things, they are helping to save their immortal souls. I'm sure it must be a real kick for you, as you've previously posted, to tear up Christian pamphlets and laugh in their faces about it, but at least such people have good intentions. Every day on my way to lectures I walk over a bridge which will inevitably have someone selling the Big Issue, someone playing an instrument and at least one charitable organisation looking for donations. I dislike being accosted by such people asking for my donations (not to say that I never give to charity), but that doesn't mean I will go out of my way to simply be a dick to them just because I don't think their cause is deserving.

7) Since christians dont regard this life as being anything 'real' or significant (given their obsession with the afterlife) then they wouldnt at all mind giving up their organs for other needier patients. For a christian to refuse is hypocritical and they should immediately admit that they aren't christian or should just shut up and allow the surgeons to cut them open.

more to come....and witness the hypocrisy of the christian religion as christians here try to justify their hate filled religion, their obscene clingign onto $$ etc etc.

I must ask: Why to scientific research? What makes scientific research so much more needy than a Church or Charity? Why are fundamental human rights so ignored and expressly violated by your proposals?

[Exarch]

... I'm certain we had a thread about this a few weeks ago...



Right... Remove the idea of the cross from Christianity...




Where does this 80% come from? Taxing the Church more than twice the amount of high-rate income tax in the UK and almost four times that of any corporation tax. We get it, you love science. We don't force charities to pay extortionate amounts to fund something they may not be supportive of, so why the Church? Apparently the fact that they are allegedly made out of gold and diamond.?

isnt the church meant to be about spirituality? why the need for material needs beyond mere survival?

Do you even realise why people go out to convert others? Their belief is that without believing in Christ, you cannot be saved. By teaching people these things, they are helping to save their immortal souls. I'm sure it must be a real kick for you, as you've previously posted, to tear up Christian pamphlets and laugh in their faces about it, but at least such people have good intentions. Every day on my way to lectures I walk over a bridge which will inevitably have someone selling the Big Issue, someone playing an instrument and at least one charitable organisation looking for donations. I dislike being accosted by such people asking for my donations (not to say that I never give to charity), but that doesn't mean I will go out of my way to simply be a dick to them just because I don't think their cause is deserving.

i'm aware of why they want to convert others like a virus, but it still doesnt make them any less annoying or any deserving of my respect.
ppl have spiritual awareness and enlightenments every day or at certain points in their lives, it's a natural maturing process; but christian leaders would rather manipulate this normal growth process and attempt to take advantage of a young kid's low self esteem in order to bolster the numbers of christian ranks. Hence my disgust at the entirety of christianity. christians are more concerned about converting others than being a good person; this aspect of christianity must be changed.

I must ask: Why to scientific research? What makes scientific research so much more needy than a Church or Charity? Why are fundamental human rights so ignored and expressly violated by your proposals

there are plenty of non religious charities around; they are much much more deserving of funds and help than any church denominated undertaking for precisely the reason that their help doesnt come with the unspoken aim or string of conversion.

Science can make ppls' lives better, can improve the lives of each and everyone and better yet has done remarkably more for us than christianity ever will. science research into enabling the blind to see for eg is a much worthier pursuit than wasting $$$ into converting others or printing bibles

[Djûn]

isnt the church meant to be about spirituality? why the need for material needs beyond mere survival?

Christianity is indeed about spirituality. But to limit its definition to this is a gross oversimplification. In order to be able to spread the message of Christianity, funds are evidently required for travel, publications, research, construction of places of worship etc. If we were to limit Christians to, as you propose, simple sheds, then it basically defeats the purpose of the Church entirely. The Church is there as a place of congregation such that people may worship and gain a greater understanding together. The priest there has devoted his life to the study of Christianity such that he might guide these people better and perform Sacraments.



You write this:

i'm aware of why they want to convert others like a virus, but it still doesnt make them any less annoying or any deserving of my respect.

Followed directly at the end of the paragraph by this:

christians are more concerned about converting others than being a good person; this aspect of christianity must be changed.

(emphasis added on both)

You evidently do not know why they want to convert others if this is your conclusion.

ppl have spiritual awareness and enlightenments every day or at certain points in their lives, it's a natural maturing process; but christian leaders would rather manipulate this normal growth process and attempt to take advantage of a young kid's low self esteem in order to bolster the numbers of christian ranks. Hence my disgust at the entirety of christianity.

Here we go again applying an objective standard to what is an inherently personal and subjective belief structure. A Christian who is trying to convert another is doing so because they believe it is the only way their immortal soul may be saved. You talk as if the Christians are insidiously circling children like buzzards just waiting for the moment to strike and steal their money.

there are plenty of non religious charities around; they are much much more deserving of funds and help than any church denominated undertaking...

Why are they much more deserving? You base this entirely on the assumption that Christianity is not correct.

...for precisely the reason that their help doesnt come with the unspoken aim or string of conversion.

Oh, come now. Tell me in all honesty that a Charity does not look for a regular donation as well. This is a terrible reason to say that Christianity is worse than a Charity.

Science can make ppls' lives better, can improve the lives of each and everyone and better yet has done remarkably more for us than christianity ever will. science research into enabling the blind to see for eg is a much worthier pursuit than wasting $$$ into converting others or printing bibles

Again, this is based on the assumption that Christianity is wrong. People give money to the Church out of donations. By imposing a tax on an organisation with religious or charitable foundations and simply giving it to a different one, you are effectively removing the right of people to give money to whatever cause they see fit. This is such a breathtaking inroad onto peoples' rights to give to charities it is almost sickening.

Furthermore, in purely economic terms we can see a gambit arising rather swiftly: If we gave one pound to helping someone to see instead of helping people to understand Christianity and Christianity is incorrect, then it is obvious that if it helps the person to see then the pound is well spent. If Christianity is correct, however, then it is obvious that if it would have helped the blind man to enter Heaven then the pound is completely wasted and indeed against the ultimate well-being of this man.

You still have not answered why you wish to impose such blatant transgressions of Human Rights, by the way.

[Exarch]

notice how many christians wish to avoid following their christian principles when it means they have to haul ass
?

and btw, missionising is amoral and self serving; there's nothing more selfish than someone who wishes to gain some sort of divine favour by trying to convert as many ppl as possible, never mind if it smells like ;
have you ever asked a christian"so what happens after you convert and after revelations?"
you'll usually find the response is usually the linear: " just focus on trying to get to heaven in the first place"
yeh, sorry, this is BS.

and to ppl who think that the church needs those funds to 'convert others' that's a disgusting reason; living expenses should be fine, and their answers merely confirms that christianity is a selfish morally decadent self masturbatory religion.

and unsurprisinlgy, ppl have compared me to Mao, well Mao was an idiot, even i know that spirituality is a needed requirement for healthy living, but we can do without the viral religion of christianity, a cult like scientology whcih needs to be changed.

@thanatos
while destroyign christianity would ultimately be help[ful, it's not a necessary requirement.

[Exarch]

Here we go again applying an objective standard to what is an inherently personal and subjective belief structure. A Christian who is trying to convert another is doing so because they believe it is the only way their immortal soul may be saved. You talk as if the Christians are insidiously circling children like buzzards just waiting for the moment to strike and steal their money.

or at least to spread their mind filth around, their religion of intolernace and bull and self masochism and guilt complexes.
this is called delusion, delusions of grandeur.

Why are they much more deserving? You base this entirely on the assumption that Christianity is not correct.

what proof do you have that they are "correct"?
heck, even genesis or deuternonomy are incorrect ethically and sceintifically.

Oh, come now. Tell me in all honesty that a Charity does not look for a regular donation as well. This is a terrible reason to say that Christianity is worse than a Charity.

christianity is worse thana charity, whereas a charity does it for a humanistic reason-the welfare of one's fellow man-christians seek to do so for the selfish promise of heavenly reward or for other ppls' $$$ or simply to convert as many ppl as possible to shore up their own waning doubts and faiths.

Again, this is based on the assumption that Christianity is wrong. People give money to the Church out of donations. By imposing a tax on an organisation with religious or charitable foundations and simply giving it to a different one, you are effectively removing the right of people to give money to whatever cause they see fit. This is such a breathtaking inroad onto peoples' rights to give to charities it is almost sickening.

right, why confiscate money from terrorist organizations? why confiscate $$ from drug cartels?
this is sucha breathtaking inroad into peoples' rights to give to drug dealers it is almost sickening. yes i can see it now.

the vatican has had an active hand in political movements the world over; are you still going to tell me that it's not involved in earthly matters or interfering in other governemnts?

Furthermore, in purely economic terms we can see a gambit arising rather swiftly: If we gave one pound to helping someone to see instead of helping people to understand Christianity and Christianity is incorrect, then it is obvious that if it helps the person to see then the pound is well spent. If Christianity is correct, however, then it is obvious that if it would have helped the blind man to enter Heaven then the pound is completely wasted and indeed against the ultimate well-being of this man.

there is no proof that your 'heaven' exists, but there is a helluva lot of proof in donating that $$$ into stem cellresearch.

You still have not answered why you wish to impose such blatant transgressions of Human Rights, by the way

did christian spaniards give a when they melted down mayan gold? when they melted down religious icons of other indigeneous peoples?
so why should i give a if i want to melt down church gold? melt down gold crucifixes and gem studded crosses?

[Dracula]

did christian spaniards give a when they melted down mayan gold? when they melted down religious icons of other indigeneous peoples?
so why should i give a if i want to melt down church gold? melt down gold crucifixes and gem studded crosses?

I feel somebody is going to end up melted himself with this fervour. Christianity is still the world's dominant religion.

or at least to spread their mind filth around, their religion of intolernace and bull and self masochism and guilt complexes.
this is called delusion, delusions of grandeur.

But who are you to decide what it is ? Even if christinaity would be wrong, it is still a phylosophy that people wish to follow. Like the club for motorbikes. Who is to tell them that they shouldn't be in this club enjoying what they do and recruiting more members ? They are free, and this is the extension of a free living being to propogate its ideas.

[mrcrusty]

Can you really expect people to take you seriously when you liken the Church to a terrorist organisation or drug cartel?

The existence of God and correctness of religion aside, I don't know where you have come up with your misguided view of Christianity, Christians and the Church in general, but I'd sure like to know.

I mean, are you sure you live in Australia?
From what I can gather about your views of the Church, it looks like you've been living across the road from a Westboro Bapist Church the whole time.

And for the record, the Vatican doesn't involve itself in government politics anymore. The 17th century called Exarch, they want their misguided assumption back.

With the increase of anti-theists such as yourself these days, the main focus of the Vatican is being able to adapt the religion to fit in more with today's societal outlook without comprising core beliefs and morals. It's been that way ever since Vatican II.

There's a reason why most governments are secular. Get back to me when Christianity becomes the official state religion in westernised countries.

What's the deal with the charities too? Are Christians just unable to be good people naturally? Apparently not according to you, all Christians are bad and whenever Christians do good things, they're still bad. I'm so glad you cleared that up for me.

Next time I decide to go to Church and donate money to Caritas, I'll yell at the people next to me saying that they're selfish pricks for donating money to a good cause.

However, let me ask you Exarch: Have you ever volunteered or worked as part of a Church sponsored charity program? Have you ever volunteered at a local shelter? Worked at a St Vinnies? Gone door knocking for the Red Cross or the Salvos?

Unless you have worked at one or more of those organisations, then you have absolutely no proof and no insight as to what motivates the religious people there to do what they do.

I have, and your view of Christian charity workers or the motivations of Christians involved with charities is way off. Freaking HUGE swing and a miss Exarch.

They don't do it because they want a place in heaven or to spread their religion. They do it because they enjoy helping people. They want to improve the welfare of their fellow man. It's called compassion.

If you're gonna argue that exercising compassion and partaking in charity as part of a religious group is a selfish and immoral act, then you might as well say that everything that a Christian ever does is immoral, selfish and should be frowned upon.

Saving a surfer's life at the beach? Immoral because you're a Catholic.

Pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming car? Selfish because you thanked God afterwards.

Having religious beliefs? Having personal beliefs is evil.

Working at a charity? All of the above.

Also, your view of the Church's opinion on stem cell research. It is against the idea of embryonic stem cell research, the idea of creating an embryo (which is already considered a human life by Catholics) just to destroy it.

In terms of adult and umbilical stem cell research however, then the Catholic Church is all for it.

[Djûn]

or at least to spread their mind filth around, their religion of intolernace and bull and self masochism and guilt complexes.
this is called delusion, delusions of grandeur.

Indeed, much like this thread.

what proof do you have that they are "correct"?
heck, even genesis or deuternonomy are incorrect ethically and sceintifically.

What proof is there that they are incorrect? I'm not claiming that they are, but that they might be. Whatever, it's lost on you, evidently.

christianity is worse thana charity, whereas a charity does it for a humanistic reason-the welfare of one's fellow man-christians seek to do so for the selfish promise of heavenly reward or for other ppls' $$$ or simply to convert as many ppl as possible to shore up their own waning doubts and faiths.

I would love to point out the humanistic charities Christians do or that charities only look for my "$$$" as well, but I don't see why I should against such a tirade of bigotry.

right, why confiscate money from terrorist organizations? why confiscate $$ from drug cartels?
this is sucha breathtaking inroad into peoples' rights to give to drug dealers it is almost sickening. yes i can see it now.

This just... Just... Wow... Nothing more need be said.

the vatican has had an active hand in political movements the world over; are you still going to tell me that it's not involved in earthly matters or interfering in other governemnts?

I don't think I ever did.

there is no proof that your 'heaven' exists, but there is a helluva lot of proof in donating that $$$ into stem cellresearch.

There's no proof that it doesn't exist. I am not claiming that it does, only that it might.

did christian spaniards give a when they melted down mayan gold? when they melted down religious icons of other indigeneous peoples?
so why should i give a if i want to melt down church gold? melt down gold crucifixes and gem studded crosses?

Sins of the father...

Enjoy your thread, good sir, I wish to take no more part of it than I would wish to with a discussion with an inanimate object. The bigotry and close-mindedness of these posts are just breathtaking, and I can see that nothing can change how you feel about Christianity or your unfounded proposals.

[Ummon]

People generally have the good sense to reform things from the inside, otherwise the term to be used is not "reform" but "imposed change".

[Rich86]

1) the bible must be reformed; parts extolling violence, illegal acts, mass rape, human rights abuses, racism, ethnocentrism etc etc must be cut out and done away with. this isnt censorship as these parts will never be considered canon ever again. Most importantly, the part where jesus thinks his is the onyl way must also be cut out. how would he know anyway?

This is wrong - you can't just 'edit' the book because you don't like bits of it - isn't this a bit like 'The Party' editing Shakespeare to conform with party ideology? Who is to say your idea of what can and cannot stay is right?

2) the promotion of the torture device of the cross must be abolished; as should the whole crucifixion thing. i dont think it's appropriate for chyildren to be watching or even worshipping such . it's disturbing and will no doubt impact negatively on their growth.

Whilst I agree glorifying the torture and death of Jesus always seemed to me to be a bit.....strange....I don't think we should ban the cross - the cross in itself is for many simply a symbol of the fact that they believe whilst Jesus died, he came back also - and that he died for everyone's sins.

all churches, even the ones which are jsut tin sheds should be taxed 80% to ensure that any donations go to where they can really do some good: funding sci tech education.

What? Who / what else pays 80% tax? By all means tax them - but why tax them more than any other organisation???

missionising to be heavily restricted, i find it hypocritical and disgusting this endless proselytising on the part of all christians, especially mormons and born again christians. if these ppl bothered to live their religion rather than trying to spread their propaganda/brainwashing around, perhaps i'd have a little more respect for them.

So you would abolish freedom of speech? Ban what they say as you don't agree with it - yet if say, the Catholic church reigned supreme and felt your beliefs and the promotion of your beliefs should be restricted you would be just a bit unhappy about this no?

Since christians dont regard this life as being anything 'real' or significant (given their obsession with the afterlife) then they wouldnt at all mind giving up their organs for other needier patients. For a christian to refuse is hypocritical and they should immediately admit that they aren't christian or should just shut up and allow the surgeons to cut them open.

giving up their organs would effectively be suicide - something they are not fond of, and further; would prevent them 'saving' people - so I don't really see any 'dilema' here....?

isnt the church meant to be about spirituality? why the need for material needs beyond mere survival?

Whilst I agree the church doesn't need huge ammounts of money - like any other business it does need a 'slush fund' for when times are hard.

[Djûn]

Whilst I agree glorifying the torture and death of Jesus always seemed to me to be a bit.....strange....I don't think we should ban the cross - the cross in itself is for many simply a symbol of the fact that they believe whilst Jesus died, he came back also - and that he died for everyone's sins.

But that's the thing, the death of Jesus is rather the key of Christianity. Without his sacrifice, then there wouldn't be a new covenant with God. This is why his death is so glorified.

[Oldgamer]

@Exarch

Your proposals are not meant to "reform" Christianity. They are meant to destroy it.

I understand if you can't bring yourself to believe. I've known many other people who can't believe, or who refuse to believe. That's a basic human right.

But you are calling for the destruction of a faith simply because you can't believe in it. And I find it interesting to note that extreme ideas like yours come at a time when the most radical and extreme administration has clawed its way to supremacy in the United States.

I know what's going on with you, and other like you. You hope that we will let go of our religion, and that the world will become safe for non-belief, and ruled by it. It will become a rational place, where people can have discussions about rational things. It would become a Utopia of Reason.

However, and tragically so, that is not true.

Those of us who are religious can tell you, faith doesn’t make one irrational, rather, it sets one on a constant and lifelong quest to search one's own heart for what is believed and why. We are compelled to weigh reason and faith, and make constant decisions as to the limits of both.

Post-modern secularists have entirely lost that capacity. Therefore, rather than saving us from "superstition", the modern marginalization of religion is in actuality creating a world in which people can no longer even tell when they are being irrational. Because they have already decided that they believe nothing, they have lost the capacity to parse the difference between reason and faith.

And so, not surprisingly, you find me on the opposite side of the fence, with regard to your proposal

[Fiyenyaa]

Problem with reforming the bible: it is supposed to be either the literal word of God or the inspired word of God.

To edit it, and that heavily, would be to admit that it's not either the literal word of God or the inspired word of God - so it's not gonna happen.

[conon394]

Oldgamer -

But you are calling for the destruction of a faith simply because you can't believe in it. And I find it interesting to note that extreme ideas like yours come at a time when the most radical and extreme administration has clawed its way to supremacy in the United States.

Come now that's just silly - I see no correlation - not lest because Exarch is flat out trolling with his screed and second because I agree with none of it and would call the previous administration far more radical and extreme...

Exarch

3) since jesus so famously said 'render unto caesar that which is caesar's etc etc', no church should ever be rich or wealthy; a nice shed should do just fine in spreading the gospel. anything else would be hypocrisy and must be purged with fire. yes, that means that priceless church gold must be melted down to fund scientific research like new cures and stem cell research. i'll make exceptions to some historical artefacts and places but the majority must go. same with church funds, which brings me to...

5) all churches, even the ones which are jsut tin sheds should be taxed 80% to ensure that any donations go to where they can really do some good: funding sci tech education.

Certainly no church should be wealthy, but I don't see anything but baiting in your argument. Not even a shed is needed to preach - true. But tax say the Methodist church out of is facility here in Colfax and you have done much more than that... you need to replace its day care and summer program. You need provide another community site for boy and girl scouts, and any number of other local meetings. More indirectly you need to replace the 2 hours after each service when a rather diverse mix of people chat and socialize mind you many people also drive their elderly parents to and form the retirement facility so they can still meet their friends and others in the community. Now you could maybe have government replace all those roles, but remember aside form the actual appointed pastor and 1 secretary and one or two teachers the entire operation is run by volunteers and the books are completely open to all - that would be unlike the government with is bureaucracy (and it almost guaranteed need for authority, secrecy and pomposity unless checked and watched - look I'm a liberal lefty but that does not mean I can't see and recognize all the flaws in government) and need to pay everyone..

Are some churches cults that abuse their members trust - sure, but any human construct companies, governments, associations are all equally susceptible. Be fair the ability of religion to mobilize volunteerism is a good thing and I hard pressed to see how the government could replace say the pre-school/daycare/elementary school capacity in my small town with more effectively since it would in no way command the same level of free support.

In any case I find it ironic that your asserted views remind me rather more of the papacy or an extreme southern baptist church - which appear to be very much what you seem to dislike.