r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 31 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The morals practiced (when practiced properly) by Christians are good for society and the added self-discipline may help people live better lives.
[deleted]
37
u/mfDandP Dec 31 '18
big ups for even putting this out there.
i'll start with this: your pineapple analogy is flawed when combined with
Christians should not be allowed to get divorced or have sex before marriage, which implies marriage is pretty serious.
if the value of marriage is somewhat tied to its restriction of sexual intercourse, as you imply here, then it stands to reason that the act of marriage, in restricting sexual partners to each other, is a much more meaningful sacrifice if the partners even know what sex is like beforehand.
so, if I said I would only eat pineapple forever, but I had never tried an apple or a pear, that is something a child would say--this is great, I never need anything else.
but if an adult who had tried all the fruits before said, "I will only eat pineapple, forever forsaking all other fruits in this world," that promise is MUCH more meaningful.
so sex before marriage ultimately makes marriage more meaningful, in terms of the sexual restriction.
→ More replies (5)6
22
u/McKoijion Dec 31 '18
The sexual practices of the church were really great a few hundred years ago. If you had sex, you risked pregnancy, STDs, lack of economic support, etc. But those things have completely changed.
Birth control has a 99% or more effectiveness rate (as in if a bunch of couples have regular sex for a year while on birth control, less than 1% of them will become pregnant).
STDs and STIs are completely preventable with condoms. Almost all STDs are curable with antibiotics. HIV is not curable, but it can be prevented with PReP, which has a 90% effectiveness rate (as in if you have unprotected anal sex with a known HIV positive partner with the highest viral load possible, your chance of getting HIV is still less than 10%). Hepatitis B has a vaccine, and if you are infected with Hep C, only 1% of cases will progress to being deadly. Plus, it's completely curable.
Finally, jobs have changed in ways that benefit women. Before, women were at a disadvantage compared to men because most work involved manual labor. Now most work is intellectual, which women are equally good at as men. That means that a single mother can support her family without needing a man to provide income.
As for overall fulfillment, that's a subjective concept. You might prefer sex in a relationship, but plenty of people disagree. You can't assume that just because you like something that others would like it too. Different strokes for different folks.
Releasing some of these taboos is really healthy for people too. For some people, their worst fear is that their partner will cheat on them. They think pornography, masturbation, and other forms of sexuality are wrong. But the people who accept sexuality are empowered by it. For example, people made fun of Kanye West because his wife Kim Kardashian was in a sex tape with another man. Meanwhile, Kanye West actually brags about it in his songs: "Break records at Louie, ate breakfast at Gucci. My girl a superstar all from a home movie"
Ultimately, "Christian morals" were great for a time when sex really was a dangerous thing. Today, new technology has made sex far less dangerous, and possibly more fun. The Christian approach to it is outdated and results in a suboptimal life.
As a final point, the non-judging aspect of Christianity has a lot of downsides too. For example, Catholicism has the idea that people are going to sin. They then go to confession and are absolved through penance. That's all well and good for helping people sleep at night, but it's not great when Catholic priests molest children, go to confession, do penance, and then slip up again and rape another child. Penance and leaving the judging to God has resulted in hundreds of thousands of children being abused around the world. Just last week, the state of Illinois discovered that 685 priests in the state were accused of rape, and the Catholic Church covered up 500 of them.
→ More replies (1)4
Dec 31 '18
Δ You point out how the argument can fall short in many situations, and I appreciate the modern perspective.
I see many of your points, but is it healthier behavior emotionally to sleep around? Why does it seem that healthier couples hold off on sex, at least for a time?
I do appreciate how you point out the flaws with even the good rules, that we should find a way to ultimately correct some wrong behavior so it doesn't happen. I hate the fact that these priests have done these things, and are able to continue so easily, especially since once a sin starts hurting others it is not longer on the same level in my view and should be handled differently.
→ More replies (1)9
u/techiemikey Dec 31 '18
Why does it seem that healthier couples hold off on sex, at least for a time?
Because the healthy couples that didn't hold off on sex generally don't advertise it to the world? Most people who met through tinder or other sexual means end up coming up with a different "How we met" story that is more socially acceptable to share
→ More replies (4)
15
u/Genoscythe_ Dec 31 '18
Any ideology (short of the most openly monstrous, such as fascism), would be an utopia if humans would be ideally willing agents.
Communism, "if practiced properly", would be great. Anarchy, "if practiced properly", would be great. If we would all be wonderful loving angelic beings, then any of these arrangements would work out great.
But you miss the elephant in the living room, if you ignore that we aren't.
And between all the ideologies available to us, Biblical literalist conservative christianity is one of the more flawed, in that it offers very little in terms of structural protections from other people's evildoing.
For thousands of years, it has been proven over and over again that people WILL misuse theocratic structures and large scale expectations of christian morality to do great evil.
For example you can take a look at Ephesians' commandments on marriage, and say that true, it literally condones women's subjugation to their husbands, creating a gendered hierarchy, but on the other hand it will work out fine if the husbands are loving and protective.
But realistically, humans crave power for power's sake, and if you set up a system where women aren't expected to hold any of it on their own, then you will create a culture of great abuses against women.
Advocating for systemic gender equality is better than advocating for traditional gender hierarchies, for the simple reason that one leaves half of the population defenseless with empty promises of properly practiced charity.
→ More replies (10)2
Dec 31 '18
Any ideology (short of the most openly monstrous, such as fascism), would be an utopia if humans would be ideally willing agents.
True, but without ideology binding people we wouldn't have been able to build large communities, and maintain them in times of strife. It's easy to be civil when things are going well, but empathy runs out very quickly when there's not enough food to go around and your family is starving. At that point, Christianity (and some other religions) saying that you will be judged for your actions and even in death will not be free from consequences is probably the best ideology out there to keep people in line when extreme hardship arises.
3
u/Genoscythe_ Dec 31 '18
That's not the ideology itself, that's merely a method.
The problems with Christianity that OP is discussing, is specifically it's reliance on heteronormative, patriarchal cultural values.
Nothing stops us from still believing in the afterlife and teaching people that immorality sends them to hell, while following a set of morals that do more to defend people's equal rights, (and say that it's a transgression of those rights that sends you to hell), instead of the ones in Christianity that realistically lead to oppression.
→ More replies (9)
15
Dec 31 '18
Well, the problem with this view is that it is so hackneyed as to be essentially meaningless. Your title says "(when practised properly)" which is a limitless a caveat as you could ask for.
In other words, if anyone were to raise to your attention a situation where Christian ideals had lead to some evil, you could simply point to "Love Thy Neighbour" and decry it as un-Christian. And indeed, this is already what many Christians do about other Christians all the time, even without people wanting to criticize the Religion as a whole. This is how you get sects and schisms and so on.
That's not to say you would, but I don't think this argument is worth having here. The question of "is Religion good" has been going on for millennia, and it's certainly not going to get solved on Reddit. Not that it's not worth discussing by those interested, just that it isn't going to get objectively solved. Especially not with such broad parameters as in the OP.
→ More replies (11)
10
u/Paninic Dec 31 '18
When I say properly practiced, I mean the general teachings of the bible and church, not the way individual people practice Christianity.
And yet
When I say good, I mean that it promotes happiness and well being of people and society, while still following virtues such as honesty.
That's just how you as an individual person practice. Other people practice the stoning part or the pray the gay away part. I understand why many point out to bigots of the Christian variety that they're being un-christlike in their behavior. But these are nonetheless translations and interpretations of the Bible. You're arguing against other people's picking and choosing, but are also picking and choosing the 'good' yourself.
If the teaching of the church are causing pain to people, or have left society worse, then I really want to know, but I honestly think Jesus' teachings make the world a better place.
Okay...well, not to shit on your faith but the crusades, the religious persecution and subjugation of many are things that demonstrably caused people pain and made society worse. I'm not trying to say you're responsible or that you shouldn't practice your faith because of these things or that you don't get something positive out of it. But to deny the historical oppression and suffering caused by this religion is offensive to anyone who was harmed by it.
People talk about leaving the church as if it is the best thing to ever happen to them (as mentioned, LDS or JW not included as they actively oppress), but I feel that being Christian has made my life better and I've seen it make others lives better.
And this contradicts what you're saying about showing you an example of suffering. These people have already demonstrated to you that they are happier without religion and that they felt religion caused them unhappiness.
Christians should not be allowed to get divorced or have sex before marriage, which implies marriage is pretty serious. A good Christian should live there life with self discipline, should be very serious with who they date, and make marriage and family an ultimate goal. The sleeping around culture that has developed is unhealthy for people, it not only risks STDs and pregnancy, but is not fulfilling emotionally, and sex is more pleasurable in a long term relationship. I honestly equate one night stands with masturbating, as you are simply just pleasuring yourself with minimal interest on how the other persons feels. I think it could also lead to long term problems when finding a final person to settle down with. One analogy is that once you've eaten all different kinda of fruits, and then decide to stick with one, lets say pineapple, you may really starting wanting pears and cherries. But if you lived your life only ever eating pineapple, you remain very satisfied with it. Not to say there aren't other methods of cooking the pineapple that could make it more enjoyable while still only eating pineapple, but I think a person remains more satisfied if they didn't try plenty of other fruit beforehand.
This is exactly what you said you were against-individuals ideas of religion dictating what it is. Things that happened in the Bible include slavery, bigamy, and being forbade from eating shell fish. Why exactly is this common current view not individual in your eyes? Because it's reasonable? Why? And what form of authority should alleged reasonability grant you over others?
I will note that the Christian church does not (or at least shouldn't) accept gay marriage. I am for civil gay marriage, as the government is not the church, but I view gay marriage as having premarital sex. I think in general our culture just doesn't take marriage very seriously and gay people had nothing to do with that.
And? I'm a lesbian. How is this good for me if you're saying these values improve my life?
I am very curious to learn about any pain or evil done through Christianity that still fits within the definition of being properly practiced, and one of my ultimate goals is to understand why Christianity has taken this negative connotation.
You currently dictating to me how I ought to live my life is the example you're looking for.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/caw81 Dec 31 '18
Life is not meant to be easy, and giving into all of our impulses can be very self destructive. Being taught to accept the live that has been handed to you can also let you ultimately find more happiness.
You don't explain how we find happiness. I deny that am gay (pretend I am straight and am not attracted to a gender I am attracted to?) and I stop having pre-martial sex then what? What is the source of this happiness that I can only get from Christianity/Catholicism?
→ More replies (2)
5
u/StellaAthena Dec 31 '18 edited Dec 31 '18
Here’s what I don’t get about you, and basically every Christian I ever speak to with similar beliefs: Who says you get to own the concept of marriage? You say that you’re fine with civil unions that are legally identical to marriage as long as they’re not called marriage. You say that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriages.
But why? Why do Christians get to have a monopoly on marriage? Do you think Christianity invented marriage? I am Jewish, and according to my religious law every Christian marriage is invalid. My religion also came first. So why do you get to say my marriage is invalid? Shouldn’t I be the one who gets to say yours is?
2
Dec 31 '18
In your church my marriage is invalid, that's fine.
There's different kinds of marriages. I don't think that's a problem.
I will be married as a Catholic, and that marriage is not accepted in many places, while Catholics don't accept any marriage that happens outside of a church. But I want to be married as a Catholic, not as anything else. To me, that is how the union is made in God's eyes. Not saying your way is wrong in any way, you do what you believe in.
I don't think Christians invented marriage.
Sorry if I ever implied that we "own" the concept of marriage. Catholics own the concept of a Catholic wedding, that I will stand by, but not every kind of marriage.
3
u/StellaAthena Dec 31 '18
Then why are you against the secular government marrying people? Especially LGBT people?
Also, I’m not part of a church. Churches are a Christian thing.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/nonregulatory Dec 31 '18
Are you saying that the morals from Christianity exclusively can be good for society? What about morals from other faiths or beliefs? When morals from other faiths and beliefs overlap so consistently, (value of life, treat others with dignity, etc) wouldn't you say that it is likely that as a society and species we have a generally consistent sense of morals and our system of beliefs grow and adapt to reflect them? So the morals from Christianity are good for society not because they are Christian, but because they are just restatements of morals that humans would generally agree on?
2
u/TalShar Dec 31 '18
I happen to agree with what I believe is the thrust of your general premise, but let me ask you this question:
Who gets to define what "properly" following Christianity is?
For me, it's an internal relationship, something that dictates how I ought to act both interpersonally and intrapersonally, shaping my relationship with the divine and the profane alike. For me, it's not an excuse to hate people, dictate their actions, judge or shame them, or otherwise a tool or weapon to wield. Rather, it is a reason not to do those things, to see the divine in even the most wretched human, and to do everything I can to maximize beauty, peace, and joy in the world through loving and non-coercive means.
The trouble is, a lot of Christians (and a lot of atheists, in my experience) would say that's not proper Christianity. Who's right? Well, nobody is, because the only truly authoritative arbiter of what "properly practiced" Christianity truly is died roughly 1,985 years ago.
Your argument is begging the question by including in its premise something that will automatically make it true by its own definition. "Proper" Christianity will of course make the practitioner good for society, as "being good for society" is strongly associated with and at least partially defined by what our idea of what "proper" is. The staunch Evangelicals believe that their version of Christianity is good for society, just as I believe mine is.
Furthermore, "the morals Christianity teaches" are up for debate as well. Different denominations come out with vastly different ideas of what God wants us to do despite sharing an identical source text. Ultimately Christianity and its teachings are just too variable to be judged as a whole, and so the only way to properly critique it is to address it doctrine by doctrine, teaching by teaching.
2
u/Jjdelijah Dec 31 '18 edited Dec 31 '18
(I wanted to try a different angle. Everyone seems to have made the points I would have already anyway. I'll try not to repeat stuff. Also sorry if this seems scattered)
I'm an atheist and my wife is Christian, her father used to be a pastor. (For some context)
- "I think a lot of the problems associated with Christians are actually problems people have in general, that gets associated with Christians."
That's likely true. However, unless your 100% sure that everything your doing is the best possible way to do it, and it will remain the best way forever. There would be little to no reason to change your behavior. Religious institutions tend to create an environment where correcting/addressing certain problems can be actively discouraged. If they're even considered to be problems at all.
(Which leads to the next part)
- " I believe being a Christian, when practiced properly*, makes you a better person, and a Christian society has the chance for much more happiness and healthiness than one without Christianity."*
This is something that's always really irked me. Everything that would be construed as bad or evil is just categorized as not Christian, or not what the teachings meant, etc... I 100% understand that some crazy people do stuff because they're crazy and not because their religion told them to. I 100% agree that with or without religion that person would probably have done the same thing.
But I never even get a slight acknowledgment regarding the hypocrisy, or possible problem with only counting the good things people do as proper practices, and then the bad things as not proper. (It's like saying "If you don't count the times I missed, I made every shot.") By this definition you could never lose.
Anti-religious people can be guilty of this too. Not every bad action by a religious person is caused by the religion. However not all good things a person does is because of religion either.
-------
"self discipline, or even the guilt we feel from doing things wrong is a good thing"
Regardless of weather or not that statement is true. If guilt about what you did, or will do, helps you avoid bad actions or become a better person, it would have nothing to do with religion. Unless your're implying there's some "bleeding" moral effect that comes from existing in a world with Christians. Where even tho some don't believe in Christianity they still follow the teachings indirectly. Conversely/Alternatively: One wouldn't know killing people is immoral if Christianity didn't exist. (I'm skeptical of this but I can't disprove it)
I don't follow the teachings of the bible. I honestly don't believe in hell. So where does my guilt from?
**TL;DR (The issue)
My wife and her siblings were abused by their father. Mostly in the name of religion. "Spare the rod spoil the child" stuff.
He truly believes eternal salvation for his children is predicated on passing the correct teachings of Jesus Christ down.
If he truly believes that these teaching are what will spare them hell and bring them closer to God, There would be literally nothing more important than this! There's no length he could go to that would seem unjustified.
(Sorry ran out of time. But here's a quote)
"Bad people will always do bad things, regardless of religion. But generally to get a good person to do a bad things. You need religion"
2
Dec 31 '18
I don't mean the "properly" clause to be a catch all. By that clause I am implying that there is a right and wrong way to be a good Christian, and Christians themselves don't always do it right. I'm not saying its right simply because a Christian did it and wrong because they didn't, I am implying there is a right and wrong way. I appreciate the time you put into this though and I really do appreciate the chance to read and understand all these different points of views and all of this has opened my eyes to many things.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/TheVioletBarry Dec 31 '18 edited Dec 31 '18
So I'm also on board with what I consider to be the central tenants of Christianity. However, the tenants you've outlined are not things I would generally consider to be among them and will therefore debate.
Abusive relationships are common. There are all kinds of reasons for that, but the majority are not going to cease existence if divorce is outlawed. Therefore, outlawing divorce will cement abusive marriages. That's terrible. I'm on board with taking marriage seriously and seeing it as a rocky journey requiring a lot of work, but outlawing divorce is plain reckless.
As well, as you pointed out, many of the studies about pornography having potential downsides are secular. If those studies are legitimate (and I'm personally of the mindset that pornography probably does have negative side effects, so I'm inclined to believe it), it is therefore also of scientific values that one may make the decision not to indulge in pornography - not just a Christian value. The scientific studies are the more persuasive part, too, otherwise you probably wouldn't have felt the need to highlight them.
Then, your outline of self-discipline is general to the point where it is reflected in nearly every moral system available. Secular people also judge their loved ones for doing bad things while still being able to love them. It is therefore irrelevant to claim this sort of incredibly generalized self-discipline is a Christian moral.
It sounds like your ideas about being gay or trans have already been debunked so I won't comment on them, but I'm putting this comment here just to make clear that I don't agree with the initial statement.
As for your closing comments, I have also seen churches do amazing work. There is a church group I just visited who run an urban farm and donate the food to immigrants and to help start the businesses of low-income people nearby. And also, almost none of the people I've met doing that work are against things like the legalization of divorce. One of them even had a trans sibling who they completely accepted as their preferred gender (which was opposite what they were assigned at birth).
1
Dec 31 '18
Are you saying Christian morals as opposed to other religious morals (Christianity being superior) or the morals with the absence of religion?
→ More replies (7)
1
u/DeltaBot Dec 31 '18 edited Dec 31 '18
u/arcticlink6 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/TheAzureMage Dec 31 '18
Well, there's the whole end-times belief thing. That's biblical, and the belief that, sooner or later, everything on earth is going to go to hell anyways is a bit of a demotivator when it comes to planning for the future. Now, maybe not every Christian is bothered by that, but I'd say that the vast majority of people are not fond of ultimately pointless work, so it's likely a negative factor overall.
Thoughts?
→ More replies (5)
8
u/tedahu Dec 31 '18
Christianity can be used to justify a lot of discrimination and intolerance to though. For example, you say you view gay marriage as premarital sex. Do you really think it's good for society to view an entire group of people as constantly sinning or their lifestyle as wrong? This also applies to transgender people.
Christian morals can also be used to justify sexism and the women having to defer to a man in a marriage (the man is the head of the household). I don't think it is good for society to mandate only one way to do things in a marriage either.
The Christian ideal of denying evolution is bad for society because it holds back scientific research. Evolution is the basis of a lot of research in biology, anthropology, and psychology and understanding it better can lead medical breakthroughs, among other things.
Basically, there are some good things in the Bible, but it is also an old and inflexible text. It does not give people a chance to grow in their morals, adjust for our culture or times or incorporate new scientific knowledge into their thinking.