TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,724
Growing up and having attended churches as well as meeting many believers (especially Christians in the US), I have come to the assessment that most (not all) Christians have a set morality and then use the Bible to justify their morals and/or preconceived beliefs. They also do that with societal values too, rather than having the Bible to do that for them. It is also why they cherry pick (which deciding what portions to include when it's convenient and exclude or ignore certain portions when it is inconvenient for them, which is considered intellectual dishonesty.). Thus, in regards to the topic of euthanasia, right to die and freedom of choice, as well as suicide, they decide to cherry pick passages from the Bible to justify that 'suicide is a sin'. Also, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) decreed suicide to be a sin, mainly to keep the masses at the time in check. (After all, most people in power fear an uprising and/or losing their slaves, workers, and what not to keep them in power, keep society going.) Ironically, they also do that to justify other ills (such as slavery - see the book of Exodus in the Old Testament, lust and adultery - in the book of Matthew in the New Testament, and many more) in society.
Also, they choose to ignore various passages that either have a neutral view on death and suicide, or even condones anti-natalism, one of which is the book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 4, verses 2-3. Those verses basically say that it's better to not be born as one would not have to suffer and that the dead are at peace while the living are suffering. Then there are apologists (Christian defenders) who will go to extreme lengths and all the mental gymnastics to defend a point. In fact, I may even claim that Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus's 12 disciples betrayed Jesus himself for money and then later CTB'd didn't go to hell because he CTB'd, but because he betrayed Jesus and didn't repent for that sin. Of course, some apologists and scholars would try to claim that Judas went to Hell because he CTB'd, which is lazy and inaccurate.
Anyways, here is a quote taken from @ScornedStoic at another place and I actually find it very logical and agree with him (see below):
So in conclusion, I don't think morality is objective, but rather subjective and dependent on the culture, society, and values of a group (or individual). I don't really argue with most religious people anymore (especially the close-minded and hostile ones) because there is no way I can change their views nor are they open enough to acknowledge and understand dissenting views.
Also, they choose to ignore various passages that either have a neutral view on death and suicide, or even condones anti-natalism, one of which is the book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 4, verses 2-3. Those verses basically say that it's better to not be born as one would not have to suffer and that the dead are at peace while the living are suffering. Then there are apologists (Christian defenders) who will go to extreme lengths and all the mental gymnastics to defend a point. In fact, I may even claim that Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus's 12 disciples betrayed Jesus himself for money and then later CTB'd didn't go to hell because he CTB'd, but because he betrayed Jesus and didn't repent for that sin. Of course, some apologists and scholars would try to claim that Judas went to Hell because he CTB'd, which is lazy and inaccurate.
Anyways, here is a quote taken from @ScornedStoic at another place and I actually find it very logical and agree with him (see below):
Virtually all Christians construct their own morality independent from the Bible, and cherrypick what they want from the Bible to meet their own morality. The reason for this is twofold;
1: it's impossible not to. The Bible is so contradictory, sometimes even within the same book, that forming a consistent morality solely from the Bible is actually impossible. No one really are "true Christians". Because of the contradictory and fallacious text that riddle the book, you have to "pick contextually", but that just means picking according to your own feeling of what is right, so we're back to square one.
2: The relationship with God is actually a profound relationship with the self, your ego. You are God. It's why he always agrees with your morality, why you'll go to heaven but God's wrath is just on all the people you disagree with. It's why religious people are personally offended when you challenge their beliefs, because you're challenging them, not God. What you think of as God is simply your own opinions and feelings manifested into a complex separate identity to give you comfort and feelings of security. But there is no God actually dictating edicts, only you.
So in conclusion, I don't think morality is objective, but rather subjective and dependent on the culture, society, and values of a group (or individual). I don't really argue with most religious people anymore (especially the close-minded and hostile ones) because there is no way I can change their views nor are they open enough to acknowledge and understand dissenting views.
Last edited: