Christians have thousands of denominations but can agree on some key points.

1. If one believes Jesus is our god and savior, he will save him/her (send us to heaven after we die)
2. Sin (wrongdoing, harmful actions towards others and ourselves) distances one from god
3. God is all loving and through him ANYTHING is possible

Many Christians also believe (depending on the denomination):

1. If one doesn’t believe in Jesus, he/she will go to hell
2. If one doesn’t belong to the correct denomination of Christianity, he/she is considered a heretic, satanist, blasphemer, etc and will go to hell
3. One cannot do good without believing there is a god
4. One cannot get into heaven without sins on their soul (solved by sacraments, penance, etc)
5. The Bible is the inspired word of god and contains all the moral and ethical guidelines we need (in some cases of fundamentalist Christianity it should be taken literally and contains all the information we need, thus eliminating the need for science)
6. If one does not believe in god they are being tricked by Satan
7. It is a duty for one as a Christian to convert non believers (strictly to their denomination)
8. The world was created in 7 days and that humans are made in God’s image (making evolution impossible)

There are more but that is the jist

The theory of evolution is that life started (somehow) as a very very very simple organism and through genetic variation and natural selection improved generation after generation to the organisms that are alive today. Each organism must reproduce and survive to carry on the line and evolve into a more advanced adapted organism.

I have reasoned that we as life forms reproduce and survive and that is the minimal purpose of life. We reproduce to carry on our DNA and survive to live long enough to get to the point of reproducing and raising offspring to a point that they can survive without needing the parent (so they can repeat the cycle)

I came to another conclusion.

According to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, the lowest level is doing good for fear of punishment. This means the individual only does good deeds (actions that benefit himself, others, the environment, etc) to avoid undesirable consequences to him/herself (How can I avoid punishment). The next level is doing good for self-interest. The individual not only does good deeds for fear of punishment but also for desire to be rewarded (what am i getting out of this?) These two levels are grouped together as pre-conventional moral developent (the morality common of children)

I have found that the basis of Christianity is based on this low level morality. At the very least Christians do good deeds for fear of hell or for the promise of heavenly reward. Christians who are simply afraid of hell or desire to be in heaven fit these two stages. I have heard the argument that Christians do good deeds to have a good relationship with god and that heaven is just a bonus and hell is reserved for those who reject god. But I have a question for that argument.

(Before I ask this I realize that there is a possibility since i cannot disprove it that deism is true. Deism is the belief god created the universe and kind of put everything into motion but then has no interference in our lives. Deducing form this god would be no different from the big bang or some other natural occurence that started the universe and should be equivalent. If someone were to praise god simply for this reason they might as well praise a very large explosion…which would be pretty ridiculous)

Why would we try to have a good relationship with a god for a reason other than heaven or hell punishment/reward if he has had no interference, no scientifically proven miracles, no scientifically provable positive impact on our world, or even scientifically provable existance at all? (If anyone has any answers I’d be glad to hear them, but I will continue assuming there is no reason besides heaven/hell reward/punishment)

This solidifes the low level morality of Christianity. I believe the theory of evolution can deduce to a higher level morality.

Reproduce and survive is often a pariah as being selfish cause of life. However I do not think this is so. I think that reproduction and survival can create a theory that includes both reincarnation and a concept of heaven/hell. We reincarnate as our offspring. While the concept of reincarnation is generally after we die our souls transfer to another lifeform, I believe that reincarnation could simply be our genetic existance (what makes us function) being transferred to a new lifeform. Another facet of reincarnation is that we come back as a higher life form if we are good and lower if we were bad (simplification) However a child is almost always a reflection of the parents. The child learns most of what he/she should do/shouldn’t do as well as interests, personality, and habits from his/her parents. Thus if someone is a good person, they pass on their ethics and behavior to the child who learns what is acceptable and what is not. Of course we have a choice (making children not strictly the parents’ responsibility but their own as well) but much of our parents attitudes and behaviors pass to the children. Likewise if someone is a complete dick, there is a great chance the child will turn out to be a dick too. So in turn we would have the purpose of being good not for our own gain but for the child’s gain.

I expect someone would ask “Well if your child is your reincarnation then your just benefitting yourself anyway, so how is that any better?” If I had a child it would not only be my reincarnation but the reincarnation of my mate. So benefitting the child not only benefits me but also my mate. Also the child is a completely seperate person. It is not the same “soul” but simply contributed genetics.

So the next question would be why? Why just carry from one meaningless existance to the next? That brings up my personal concept of heaven. Theoretically if we continued evolving over billions and billions of years we would approach evolving into an infinitely adapted organism (theoretically perfect) If we were (theoretically) perfect life would be heaven. We’d have no problems because we’d be perfect. Life as we know it would be perfect. However it would not be us in heaven, but our descendants. Our “reincarnations” if you will.

But if the earth only exists for so long how can we ever acheive heaven for our descendants? That would be the purpose of space travel. We would need to move on to another planet to continue our existance. Since the world won’t be around forever we can’t stay here forever. However since we’ve already started a space program I’m sure we’ll be fine by the time the sun blows up (billions of years from now)

This brings us to ethics. Why would we try and do good for others if we are not reproducing with them? Well if this strive for perfection is infinite theoretically we could mate with every surviving line in our species. Thus if one does harm to someone else there is a good chance he/she is harming the ancestor of one of our descendants (thus decreasing the chances of survival of our own descendants) That is why we do good for others, for the benefit of our descendants somewhere along the line. Still this is doing good for others for others’ gain both our descendants and the descendants of others.

Doing good for others for the benefit of others eliminates doing things for ourselves. While everyone does at least some things for themselves and noone is perfect. We should strive to do good for others for this reason not for fear of punishment or lust for reward.

In my opinion, living a life to give a better life to our descendants in this way is more following the teachings of Jesus than various Christian doctrine. Since this theory leaves out a necessity for god, it is not a matter of faith but a matter of logic and reason. Thus eliminating the need for a devotion for god.

There is no “absolute” truth to morality. Suppose there are 50 people in a public building. A suicide bomber comes in with explosives exposed and wrapped around his chest and claims that he is about to blow the building up with a push of a button. You just happen to have a firearm and have the opportunity to kill him (and this is the only way to stop him, for argument sake). Do you kill him? Or do you let him blow up the building killing himself and everyone in the building? According to the Ten Commandments you should let him kill everyone for the sake of obeying “God’s” law. But IMO it would be more ethical to kill him since he would die either way and you’d be saving 50 lives by committing murder.

Not because of me, that’s for sure. And that, I will never understand. But instead will be thankful for.

God bless you all.