# Concerning "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" Video **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2012, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503 "2012-02-02T04:36:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/41 "2012-02-09T15:43:10Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > The most important thing is to fulfill the purpose you set for yourself. The second most important thing is to do that as effectively as possible, (unless part of your stated purpose is to half-ass it.) And whatever does that is the right thing to do. So… Lies don’t matter. The truth doesn’t matter. What matters is accomplishing your purpose. And if lies, falsehoods, self-deception, even murder best accomplish it. Then that is the right thing to do. It would be “immoral” not to. Morality has to be defined in terms of whether or not something fulfills the purpose. That’s just plain nonsense. Morality has nothing to do with your “purpose”, if any. Morality is often outright inconvenient. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > But this is all totally subjective. A serial killer whose purpose is murder is going to find that moral. And, as I already showed, your view is no more valid than his. His one view is no less valid than a billion people with the same goal. More nonsense. He has a defective mind. And a world full of serial killers would be totally dysfunctional and a miserable place to live in. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Numbers don’t matter; what works is what matters. Evolution shows us that… Unless, there is a being who created the universe and set a purpose for it. If you believe in universal morality, things that are right or wrong regardless, then you evidence a belief in a creator.) Even more nonsense. The existence of a creator is irrelevant to morality. If there was a creator and he decides something is moral or immoral, that isn’t any more absolute than if I do so. And even if there was some “universal morality”, why should I care? I’m not going to go around torturing or murdering people if some supposed “universal morality” tells me to. You are assuming that your hypothetical universal morality would be _desirable_. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Except that the real Christians don’t do that. “Real Christians” do it all the time. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > People in power calling for genocides in the name of Christ were deliberately not letting their followers know what the bible actually says. Nonsense; the Bible is quite bloodthirsty. It was written by barbarians, after all. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Except He doesn’t happen to agree with me. I find I have to conform to His standard. More nonsense. “He” doesn’t exist. You are either listening to to some preacher, or you are talking to yourself and labeling it “god”. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > The creator gets to decide what purpose he made his creation for. No one can come along later and say, “you didn’t mean that, you obviously created it for this purpose.” Yes, we can. If the creator actually existed and wanted a creation that would just fulfill its purpose then it should have made a mindless universe. Your god has no right to tell me what to do or what to think. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > If a superior being made a universe for the purpose of baby eatting, that would be the purpose of the universe. (meaningless tautology, but it has to be said for the benefit of some people.) And the purpose defines what is “moral,” so, baby eatting would be “moral.” Since morality has to be defined in terms of what fulfills the purpose. Except that’s not morality. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > We’ve had these discussions more than once before, and I know where it goes. And it ends with you leaving and spouting the same unsupportable statements again elsewhere. And I’m not interested in that. :rolleyes: You are not really in a position to complain about people making “unsupportable statements”. That’s all you do. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > . And, If you’ve seen my rationale, you should realize that if the concept of God didn’t exist in the world, but I wanted to believe that a decent society should be the goal of mankind? Or if I choose to believe that there are universal human rights, or that it’s a universal moral law that people should be good to each other? Then i would have to invent the concept of God. No, then you would _oppose_ belief in gods. Religion corrupts people, morally and intellectually. Promoting, justifying, and defending evil is much of the purpose of religion. Moral progress begins with rejecting or sidelining religion. And again, a god or gods is irrelevant to the existence of universal morality. ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/42 "2012-02-16T13:54:17Z")
Two things to deal with first, but the most important point is further down. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > …Morality is often outright inconvenient. You mean almost as if you have conflicting purposes? “I really want more material goods to make my life easier and stealing from this guy would accomplish that purpose.” “I really feel that other humans should be treated with respect and stealing from this guy would be deliberately opposed to that purpose.” “Oh, I’m feeling a conflict. Like it would be inconvienient for my purposes either way. If I steal from him I don’t show respect, but if I do, I don’t aquire more things. What to do; what to do?” You know, if you just make either one of those things much less important there is no conflict. If you don’t feel any real need to amass material goods, you don’t feel any need to steal. If you don’t care about respecting others, you won’t feel any compunction not to. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And a world full of serial killers would be totally dysfunctional and a miserable place to live in. [sarcasm mode] Oh, there is no way to reply to this. Because obviously predators, (even lions for instance,) would eliminate all their prey if they could and populate the world only with predators, (a whole world of lions, etc.) and then die out themselves. But, oh, if only there were some response to that. If only, if only, if only someone… (anyone…) had previously mentioned that any type of predator, (thiefs, for instance,) would naturally want few other predators around and would want an abundance of prey… Too bad that isn’t the case, though. Too bad no one said this, (just as an example.) [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] **Even** thieves don’t want too many thieves around, it makes it harder for them and more likely they get stolen from. They want everyone off their guard. (But, then, some just want chaos. So, a decent civilization isn’t in their interests. It doesn’t suit their purpose…) [/QUOTE] Too bad, that above example, (which didn’t happen,) can’t be extended to apply to other predators. Too bad it isn’t the case that the word “even,” (bolded and underlined in the above,) doesn’t have the connotation that this is just one example, and one of the least of the examples at that. [/sarcasm] * * * There are many things here that I’m not really going to deal with now. We’ve argued about them enough previously to no avail that I’m going to skip them to get to the most crucial point of your thread. They are complicated issues that we’ve made no headway on. Why bother discussing them when… There is a very easy and simple test that will determine who has the right basis. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] > > [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] > See, without something beyond this universe, the only purpose this universe supports is survival. And even though a large group doing the same thing is one means of surviving, the group has no call to say, “this is the way to do it, our way is best.” Because it has always been the case that it’s a small group with a new trait that suddenly becomes better adapted and out competes the others. So, no one has any call to tell anyone what their purpose should be. That unpopular trait might be the next evolutionary leap. The only judge is what works. Right and wrong are only words to describe whether or not what you are doing achieves your particular purpose. …The most important thing is to fulfill the purpose you set for yourself. [/QUOTE] That’s just plain nonsense. Morality has nothing to do with your “purpose”, if any… …And again, a god or gods is irrelevant to the existence of universal morality. [/QUOTE] Ok. Morality has nothing to do with your purpose, or gods. So then… You should be able to easily prove that **Here’s the test.** Prove to me any moral rule or principle you want… Without giving a purpose for that rule or principle. You have to give me a reason to follow that rule or principle without giving a reason for it. If it is any rule that people can just choose to follow or not as they see fit, it isn’t universal. And if it is just something you choose on your own with no basis for it, then it has become a purpose on its own. You have chosen it _as_ your purpose. You may notice this is a trick question. It really can’t be done. But your position demands that it is possible. And I will not answer any question or post of yours unless you either answer that question or admit you can’t do it and every moral rule or principle is based on its purpose. > [@](#): > > You are not really in a position to complain about people making “unsupportable statements”. That’s all you do. If your view, (that moral rules are not dependant on your purpose,) is supportable, support it. Either you can show a universal moral rule without a reason for it, or I can show that there is one. And remember, you have to convince me it is a universal rule. You have to show me why I should follow it… or that will be my only question to you. Give me a rule. Then tell me why I should follow it. (and then you’ve failed, because you’ve supplied the purpose for the rule.) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/43 "2012-02-16T17:19:04Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Ok. Morality has nothing to do with your purpose, or gods. > So then… You should be able to easily prove that > **Here’s the test.** > > Prove to me any moral rule or principle you want… > Without giving a purpose for that rule or principle. > You have to give me a reason to follow that rule or principle without giving a reason for it. > > If it is any rule that people can just choose to follow or not as they see fit, it isn’t universal. And if it is just something you choose on your own with no basis for it, then it has become a purpose on its own. You have chosen it _as_ your purpose. > > You may notice this is a trick question. It really can’t be done. But your position demands that it is possible. > > And I will not answer any question or post of yours unless you either answer that question or admit you can’t do it and every moral rule or principle is based on its purpose. > > If your view, (that moral rules are not dependant on your purpose,) is supportable, support it. Either you can show a universal moral rule without a reason for it, or I can show that there is one. > > And remember, you have to convince me it is a universal rule. You have to show me why I should follow it… or that will be my only question to you. > > Give me a rule. Then tell me why I should follow it. (and then you’ve failed, because you’ve supplied the purpose for the rule.) This makes no sense to me at all. Could someone else attempt to translate this? It looks like he wants something done, but he has put restrictions on it that _prevents_ it from being done? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/44 "2012-02-16T19:34:52Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > If a superior being made a universe for the purpose of baby eatting, that would be the purpose of the universe. (meaningless tautology, but it has to be said for the benefit of some people.) And the purpose defines what is “moral,” so, baby eatting would be “moral.” Since morality has to be defined in terms of what fulfills the purpose. This may be the single most IMmoral post I’ve ever seen on this board outside of pedophile-apology threads. “The big bully who threatened us with eternal torture if we didn’t listen to him said it was moral to eat babies, so dig in!” Fuck that! Anyone who decides that such a “god” deserves their worship has no moral sense to speak of. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/45 "2012-02-16T19:44:12Z")
I think what he’s pointing out is that if we did live in a universe that was created by a deity that wanted us to eat babies, we wouldn’t know any better and we’d all assume it was moral having no other frame of reference. This, I feel, is a pretty decent argument against the notion that the universe has been created for any purpose at all. ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/46 "2012-02-22T04:15:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This makes no sense to me at all. Could someone else attempt to translate this? It looks like he wants something done, but he has put restrictions on it that _prevents_ it from being done? You think I didn’t know it couldn’t be done? [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] You may notice this is a trick question. It really can’t be done. **But (his) position demands that it is possible**. [/QUOTE] I’m not putting unreasonable restrictions on it. Only natural and logical ones. I’m saying, in effect, that what you call moral is based on what you believe is the purpose of life. Der Trihs said that morality isn’t based on any purpose. So, I said prove it. You can try too if you want. Explain why I should follow any moral rule you propose. But, you obviously can’t have a purpose for the rule, either… I didn’t place that restriction on it… **He did**. So, there is simply no way for you to give me a reason to follow your rule. [QUOTE=jayjay] This may be the single most IMmoral post I’ve ever seen on this board outside of pedophile-apology threads. [/QUOTE] So, you don’t believe morality has any tie to purpose either. So, I expect you to prove it. Give me a reason to follow a moral rule without giving a purpose for it. [QUOTE=jayjay] Fuck that! Anyone who decides that such a “god” deserves their worship has no moral sense to speak of. [/QUOTE] Oh, I never said such a god deserved any worship. I certainly wouldn’t. Unless I had been raised with that belief, then I probably wouldn’t know any better. Much as Jack Batty said… I would say you can’t go back and acuse people of being morally inferior when they “didn’t know any better.” But, also, if there is a “better” to know, you are saying there is a higher purpose to existance than what they believed. ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/47 "2012-02-22T04:23:02Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > This, I feel, is a pretty decent argument against the notion that the universe has been created for any purpose at all. What I’m saying is that morality is tied to purpose. If you have no purpose to existance there is no morality. After saying there is no purpose for existance, the only reason for me to follow any rule is if you can show me that it benifits me. (i.e. it fulfills the purposes I have decided are important to me.) So. the only way to propose a rule that everyone should follow is to convince them that it suits their purpose. Or get them to accept a purpose that supports it. So, could you get everyone to support the purpose that human life has value and is worthy of respect? You are basically telling them that the universe supports that purpose. Or you are telling them “come on, please… just pick respect for human life as your purpose… pleeeeeeeaaaaaase!” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/48 "2012-02-22T07:16:42Z")
Morality isn’t tied to the purpose of existence-it is tied to existence itself, whether it ultimately has a purpose or not. I exist, and whether or not there is an ultimate purpose to my existence, I prefer it to the alternative. I see others around me, and I am intelligent enough to realize that their brains operate pretty much the same way mine does, and so I identify with them and empathize with them. I know how I want to be treated, I know how I will react if I am treated that way, and I trust that others(for the most part) want to be treated the same way and will(for the most part) react the same way. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/49 "2012-02-22T13:51:34Z")
A lot of excellent things have been said already. I was raised on the “let’s try to love Jesus without being religious” line–but I was, of course, at the same time, raised religious. If I want to be very charitable, I can say that what people are _trying_ (and rarely succeeding) in doing when they say this is to advocate for a completely spontaneous and non-institutional way of doing things together as believers. (As, they imagine, the original Christians must have done.) My own view is that, given what is typically meant by “religion” in these contexts (i.e., a system of rules purporting to prescribe how one should be in order to relate correctly to God), the only way for a Christian to be without religion is to take utterly and literally seriously what Paul said: Everything is permitted. Note that James explains exactly what a _good religion_ should look like, and advocates that the people he’s talking to (who are, of course, Christians) should be doing that. So it seems the bible itself is not against religion per se–it’s explicitly pro in fact. ---
**Author:** ![Nom\_de\_Plume](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85f322/32.png) [@Nom\_de\_Plume](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nom_de_Plume)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/50 "2012-02-23T11:58:47Z")
What I got from the YouTube video was a complaint about people who ONLY believe in religion. That is who attend church and follow all the rules mechanically, without a relationship with God or Jesus. I think he made some good points. I’m not sure I understand the hostility I’ve seen here toward the guy who made the video. If you personally don’t believe in God or Jesus, wouldn’t you rather deal with Christians who sincerely tried to follow Jesus, rather than the hypocrites that try to use their Church’s doctrine or attendance at the building each week to make themselves appear more righteous? Ghandi said something along the same lines, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”. (Quoting here from memory. Help me if I got it wrong." ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/51 "2012-02-23T13:40:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Morality isn’t tied to the purpose of existence-it is tied to existence itself, whether it ultimately has a purpose or not… This is an attempt to give a reason for morality without giving a purpose for it, right? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > … I exist, and whether or not there is an ultimate purpose to my existence, **I prefer it to the alternative**. Except the bolded, underlined, enlarged text is specifically \*you choosing \*your own purpose. I don’t even need to go any further. Right there fail. Try again. I will explain, however. I’ve already said that the only purpose the universe supports is survival. And I usually get a complaint from atheist on that comment that they get to pick their own purpose.The rest of your post is you trying to get others to _accept_ your purpose for your survival. I don’t see anything that makes it imperative that they do. In fact, doesn’t everyone get to choose their own purpose? So, even if they choose “I prefer existence to the alternative” as their purpose, they don’t have to choose anyone else’s survival as their purpose. You may have, but that was _your free choice of a purpose_. But if your death, or their acquisition of your stuff, enhances their survival, that’s what would be the right thing to do. That would fulfill the purpose they set. The universe doesn’t frown if someone survives at your expense. Survival is it’s own reward. There is nothing about your existence that says you have to survive too. You were the one who suggested that. You set that as your purpose. And here’s the interesting note to the rest of your post. [QUOTE=Czarcasm] I see others around me, and I am intelligent enough to realize that their brains operate pretty much the same way mine does, and so I identify with them and empathize with them. I know how I want to be treated, I know how I will react if I am treated that way, and I trust that others(for the most part) want to be treated the same way and will(for the most part) react the same way. [/QUOTE] Very carefully worded. This doesn’t even make a moral point. It’s simply an observation. Not once do you say, “and therefore, you should treat people the way you want to be treated.” It very carefully does not once say there is any spe cific way to treat people. One, that amended statement would be wrong, since your observation doesn’t lead to that conclusion without more information. i.e. “since it is more likely someone will treat me how I want to be treated if I treat them how they want to be treated… in order to increase the chance they will treat me well, (statement of purpose,)… you should, treat them how you want to be treated, (moral statement. the way you achieve your purpose.)” You didn’t say any of that that would have made your statement any sort of moral instruction. Did you realize that anything that actually made a moral statement and a reason for it would explicitly state a purpose and a means to achieve that purpose? Did you notice that you only made an observation about how others \*\*would like \*\*to be treated and didn’t make any statement about how someone **should** treat them? Did you word it so carefully because you had deceived yourself into thinking that was a moral instruction? Or did you word it so carefully in order to try to deceive others into thinking it was a moral instruction? It seems likely that it was carefully worded to avoid statements of purpose, which this part of your post acheived, but it’s also devoid of moral content. So, when I asked you to pick any moral statement you felt like explaining… The **only** statement you made that had any moral implications at all was the first one. the one that atheists always give me trouble for when I point out. That the only purpose the universe supports is survival. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I exist, and whether or not there is an ultimate purpose to my existence, I prefer it to the alternative… And the moral implications of that statement are not, I think, what you were attempting to prove. That the right thing to do is that which enhances your survival. Whatever that may be. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/52 "2012-02-23T13:56:41Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > And the moral implications of that statement are not, I think, what you were attempting to prove. That the right thing to do is that which enhances your survival. Whatever that may be. And the point you continually fail to get is that long term survival is preferable to short term survival. Sort term survival-getting everything I want no matter the cost to others. Long term survival-creating or enhancing an atmosphere that reduces threat to my survival. Stabbing someone in the back and taking what I need may enhance my short term survival, but retribution from concerned citizens and loved ones will probably be detrimental to my long term survival. A standardized ethical code is a must if a society, and those that reside in that society, wish for long term survival. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/53 "2012-02-23T14:00:45Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Did you notice that you only made an observation about how others \*\*would like \*\*to be treated and didn’t make any statement about how someone **should** treat them? Did you word it so carefully because you had deceived yourself into thinking that was a moral instruction? Or did you word it so carefully in order to try to deceive others into thinking it was a moral instruction? It seems likely that it was carefully worded to avoid statements of purpose, which this part of your post achieved, but it’s also devoid of moral content. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. My post wasn’t carefully worded to hide, avoid or deceive-it was straightforward and to the point, and any hidden meanings reside in your mind alone. ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/54 "2012-02-23T14:46:32Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > If I want to be very charitable, I can say that what people are _trying_ (and rarely succeeding) in doing when they say this is to advocate for a completely spontaneous and non-institutional way of doing things together as believers. (As, they imagine, the original Christians must have done.) The early church were not without leaders, or those who taught. What they tried to acheive was a structure where those with authority didn’t lord it over others, enhance their own power and glory; glorify themselves over God and man. > [@Frylock](#): > > My own view is that, given what is typically meant by “religion” in these contexts (i.e., a system of rules purporting to prescribe how one should be in order to relate correctly to God), the only way for a Christian to be without religion is to take utterly and literally seriously what Paul said: Everything is permitted. ignoring what he said right before and right after obviously. I Cor 6:9-13 > [@Frylock](#): > > Note that James explains exactly what a _good religion_ should look like, and advocates that the people he’s talking to (who are, of course, Christians) should be doing that. So it seems the bible itself is not against religion per se–it’s explicitly pro in fact. My view is that the organisation of the early church was for the edification of the body, and not the power of those in charge; (and not that they didn’t have any leadership at all.) My view is that tradition and ritual was not supposed to get in the way of doing the right thing. Like in the parable of the good Samaritan. A priest and a Levite passed by the injured man. If they were going to minister to the congregation in the temple, they would have to keep themselves clean, meaning that they couldn’t help this man without jeopardizing their “greater” service. (Luke 10:25-37) The rituals of the institution meant to serve the people actually > [@Nom\_de\_Plume](#): > > What I got from the YouTube video was a complaint about people who ONLY believe in religion. That is who attend church and follow all the rules mechanically, without a relationship with God or Jesus. I think he made some good points. > I’m not sure I understand the hostility I’ve seen here toward the guy who made the video. If you personally don’t believe in God or Jesus, wouldn’t you rather deal with Christians who sincerely tried to follow Jesus, rather than the hypocrites that try to use their Church’s doctrine or attendance at the building each week to make themselves appear more righteous? > Ghandi said something along the same lines, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”. (Quoting here from memory. Help me if I got it wrong." I like everything you say here. And like the sermon I heard recently where the pastor said, “Christianity is jam-packed with non-Christians.” And then I get arguments from the atheists claiming that those who are obviously not following Christ are “real Christians.” [QUOTE=Der Trihs] [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] Except that the real Christians don’t do that. [/QUOTE] “Real Christians” do it all the time. [/QUOTE] See? He knows what a Christian is and I don’t… I can read the instructions attributed to Christ… (just one example Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.) I can see people claiming to be Christians don’t do anything he says, and I can conclude they aren’t really Christian. But some atheists know better that anyone who claims to act on behalf of something is actually a true representative of it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn\_Murray\_O’Hair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair) > [@](#): > > Madalyn Murray O’Hair (April 13, 1919 – September 29, 1995) was an American atheist activist and founder of the organization American Atheists and its president from 1963 to 1986. > …O’Hair later founded American Atheists and became so controversial that in 1964 Life magazine referred to her as “the most hated woman in America.”[1][2] > > In 1995 she was kidnapped and murdered, along with her son Jon Murray and granddaughter Robin Murray O’Hair, by former American Atheist office manager David Roland Waters. Everything I’ve every seen of her, she was antagonistic and full of spite. From what I know of O’Hair and this incident I must conclude that atheists are largely hate filled bastards prone to murder. Oh, wait. I don’t believe that. They can’t all be antagonistic bastards who inject themselves into a discussion of what a loving god would want from us to claim he doesn’t want anything because he doesn’t exist. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] More nonsense. “He” doesn’t exist. [/QUOTE] Ok, I _try_ not to believe they are all hate filled bastards. ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/55 "2012-02-23T14:57:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. > My post wasn’t carefully worded to hide, avoid or deceive-it was straightforward and to the point, and any hidden meanings reside in your mind alone. Straightforward and to the point? with all that talk of … [QUOTE=Czarcasm] I know how I want to be treated, I know how I will react if I am treated that way, and I trust that others(for the most part) want to be treated the same way and will(for the most part) react the same way. [/QUOTE] Without once saying what that might mean for how we should treat others or why we should treat others any particular way. Straightforward and devoid of any moral content? Is that the extent of your ability to discuss morality? Why don’t you provide the example asked for? The example that must exist if morality isn’t tied to purpose. A moral instruction that we should obviously follow, but without giving a purpose for it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/56 "2012-02-23T15:30:15Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Straightforward and to the point? with all that talk of … All _what_ talk? It was just a couple of sentences that were straightforward and to the point. Are you actually incapable of taking anything at face value, or must everything have a hidden meaning? > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Without once saying what that might mean for how we should treat others or why we should treat others any particular way. Treat others as you would want to be treated , and they are more likely to do the same to you, and everybody survives a bit longer. Run that through your English-to-Freud Babelfish program and get back to me, o.k.? > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Straightforward and devoid of any moral content? Is that the extent of your ability to discuss morality? Not really, but I am not trying to write a treatise here. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Why don’t you provide the example asked for? The example that must exist if morality isn’t tied to purpose. A moral instruction that we should obviously follow, but without giving a purpose for it. What percentage of my final grade is this essay question worth? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/57 "2012-02-23T15:37:19Z")
When religious people act morally, it’s because they’re afraid of what will happen to them after they die. When atheists act morally, it’s because they’re afraid of what will happen to them before they die. It’s really as simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/58 "2012-02-23T15:41:18Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > When religious people act morally, it’s because they’re afraid of what will happen to them after they die. > > When atheists act morally, it’s because they’re afraid of what will happen to them before they die. > > It’s really as simple as that. I can buy that. ---
**Author:** ![Nom\_de\_Plume](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85f322/32.png) [@Nom\_de\_Plume](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nom_de_Plume)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/59 "2012-02-23T16:32:09Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > When religious people act morally, it’s because they’re afraid of what will happen to them after they die. > > When atheists act morally, it’s because they’re afraid of what will happen to them before they die. > > It’s really as simple as that. I think it’s a little more complicated than that. The promise of a better life after death is a nice reward, but not the only one promised by Christianity. I mean, is your relationship with your parents based solely on the promise of inheritance when they die, or do you get more from the relationship than that? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503/60 "2012-02-23T18:09:13Z")
> [@Nom\_de\_Plume](#): > > I think it’s a little more complicated than that. The promise of a better life after death is a nice reward, but not the only one promised by Christianity. > I mean, is your relationship with your parents based solely on the promise of inheritance when they die, or do you get more from the relationship than that? A - I’ve been promised nothing, and that is not at the basis of my relationship with them. 2 - I get a lot out of the relationship because it is an actual relationship with real live people who I can touch and talk to face to face, not an imaginary relationship between myself and someone I really, really, really hope exists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-video/611503.md?page=4)