"My" God? 🤔 And here I thought you were religious, lol. Well, to each their own, as long as you're righteous we can have some disagreements and live together in peace regardless! 👍
Honestly, I don't know much about it, it might be one of those crazy American megachurch style nonsense religious groups and in that case, yeah, be double wary. 😔
My POV: morality is (largely?) innate, and if I lined up 100 people and we really went full Socratic method we'd see it, with only a few ridiculously disturbed and confused people arguing against whatever we acknowledged. It's just complex, because some things are very case-to-case and people just want moral rulings under 10 words because complexity is scary and they lack discernment (the Germanic "a rule is a rule is a rule and I follow it because I'm a good boy" attitude comes to mind, for instance, which can easily end up in "I was just following orders, I was being a good boy!"), but the vast majority of people are reasonable enough we'd come to an understanding given enough time... in the vacuum of propaganda and brainwashing, ofc.
Any religious moral system that says God allows and wants you to murder kind, sane and humane folks can be safely disregarded. What the fuck, lol. Nobody who fears God's judgment (which is a basic prerequisite to call yourself a monotheist!) can argue for that or act that way; how would you explain that shit to Him? But, you know, people... I mean, the Crusades were framed through "Deus Vult" (and the Zionist neo-Crusades are more or less excused the same way, right?), some things don't change and all of those bloodthirsty murderers are burning in Hell, I'm pretty sure. 😔
I think sinfulness and immorality are usually one and the same but perhaps you're right and I'm overreaching. I'm happy with calling it morally wrong. 👍
Paul, the "faith without works", "just believe Jesus = God and you'll be saved" guy? That's your point of reference? Even in its nonsense, Paul without Jesus is nothing, but here you are saying "how do you know Jesus was that guy?" And the Sermon on the Mount is basically the ideological basis and the soul of everything good in Christianity! And you gotta pick and choose, because of corruption and obvious nonsense. What makes sense stands by itself, what doesn't doesn't, and when we meet God (I assume you believe in that at least...) we'll explain ourselves. Also, much of scripture is just letters from one group or dude to another, like by their own admission not "the word of God". It can make sense, it cannot, what was kept in the Bible can be gold and it can also be shit.
You're very confused, both about the world and in your internal belief system, it's completely incoherent, but to you your system and to me mine, I guess. 🤷
Who was it, then?! Regardless, whoever that person was preached things in that category, because those words stand by themselves and have that character by themselves, it just happened to have come from Jesus at that time (and others throughout history, ofc). If you disagree with the Sermon on the Mount, that's a different story, but I'm not making an argument of authority here.
Also, what? What do you think the "Roman Catholic Church" means? Or the Vatican being in Rome? Constantine the Great?! This is just basic history. 😅
If he's the man who preached the Sermon of the Mount and had enough followers through his words and actions the freaking Roman Empire had to co-opt his ideology (mostly in name only, and not without corrupting it entirely, ofc), I feel like I have enough reasons to see Jesus that way.
Better than nothing, and by far better than the nihilistic, hedonistic, consumerist pseudo-ideology the West currently spouses, but the man-worshipping and polytheistic nature of these Trinitarian religious groups is still something to be a little bit wary of.
I'd go further even and go full "all I know is I know nothing" like Socrates, but we can be practical and discerning: if you've ever met a wise person, you can imagine how a really wise, anti imperialistic, revolutionary religious leader who preached righteousness and wasn't in it for the money would act. 🤷
But if someone doesn't tell you it's morally wrong to take advantage of fools/disturbed individuals that might be putting their whole life savings on red or black (and that you should only reap where you sow and not be greedy in general) and endangering not only themselves but also their families, how are we truly gonna convince someone in a to restrain themselves, specially if they're in a position of comparative power?
I wonder if they can keep it as "normal", silly and light as they did in the OG show. Probably not, Anglo Saxon/Western culture has changed too much in the past two decades...
But you're not weak, confused and immature, and some societies have large pluralities of folks who are nothing but those things. 😔