News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Are Christian Morals Superior?

Started by Asherah, April 23, 2012, 03:36:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

pytheas

#30
Quote from: Asherah on April 23, 2012, 03:36:49 AM
Over the weekend, I was talking with my mom, who is a very strong Christian. We were talking about morals.  So, her point was that, Christian morals have changed the cultures in which most people have embraced Christianity.

When I say Christian morals, I'm talking about forgiveness, patience, kindness, self-control, selfless giving, charity, caring for orphans and widows, etc. If a Christian is living a good life, then they usually display these kinds of attributes...not always, but usually....at least in my experience. I have to admit that I didn't know how to respond. She is right that I am heavily influenced by Christian morality and I want to follow that moral code.

-To begin
Very nice avatar!

Christian "morals" do not exist. They borrow a STOIC version of moral code (ancient greek philosophers)  and on top of it apply confusion and exception to what is understood by common sense and common empathy as right and wrong. Read Nietchze : the antichrist, for more explicit detail.
The positive sociability values and strengths of HUMAN characters of temperance and love, forgiveness, compassion etc. are ever so much older than the new patchwork upstart imposter christians' appearance and conquest BY BLOOD AND SWORD.

(A christian Displaying their "goodness" and "piousness" is a sick and hypocritic game of ettiquette. an appropriate response is to vommit on them

I cannot go into the immense and very interesting ethnographic material that shows that both good and bad behaviours are linked and appear in all societies irrespective of religion and development. Modern western societies have become more humane as they moved AWAY from christian dogma. If you plot the christian influence on the profile of western civilisation you can see that a focus on christianity = dark middle ages

You cannot explain all this to your mum. Love her and accept her and try not to be too upset by her fixations. Also one can be gratefull with a parent that pisses them off, as the negative feelings can be used to counterbalance the grief when the parent passes away...

"Not what we have But what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance."
"Freedom is the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency"
"Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little."
by EPICURUS 4th century BCE

En_Route

Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.

I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!


Interestingly, William Wilberforce who was the moving spirit behind the abolition of slavery in Great Britian was  inspired to do so by his devout Christian principles.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Crow

There is nothing unique (therefore not superior) in terms of morality in Christianity that isn't already present in Judaism, The teachings of Jesus if the bible of Jesus and Paul is to be believed do not show anything different to the teachings of Judaism, its really the beliefs of Paul and the actions from the various different church authorities that create the difference between the two. But in terms in morals Christianity is far from unique in secular philosophy or philosophy in religion. My personal opinion is that its actually pretty rubbish especially when you start looking at the eastern religions , even the teaching of Confucius which are parallel to Christianity are far more in depth and interesting with reasons for each rather than "because god(I) says so" language that is found throughout Christianity.
Retired member.

Sweetdeath

Quote from: Asmodean on April 25, 2012, 09:10:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 25, 2012, 08:18:32 AM
Wishing people dead isn't very nice  ;)
One can, however, apply Asmoskills to it and make it, if nothing else, interesting  ;D

Gotcha :)
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

pytheas

Quote from: En_Route on April 25, 2012, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.

I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!


Interestingly, William Wilberforce who was the moving spirit behind the abolition of slavery in Great Britian was  inspired to do so by his devout Christian principles.
That is a nasty twist you put on the story,
his motivation was his philanthropy NOT the moronic dogma of devoutness you proclaim
In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition...His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropist
devout christian principles also existed in medieval torture gardens

what changed was the Age of Enlightnment HUMANISM
not
segregatory hypocrits
"Not what we have But what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance."
"Freedom is the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency"
"Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little."
by EPICURUS 4th century BCE

En_Route

Quote from: pytheas on April 25, 2012, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 25, 2012, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.

I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!


Interestingly, William Wilberforce who was the moving spirit behind the abolition of slavery in Great Britian was  inspired to do so by his devout Christian principles.
That is a nasty twist you put on the story,
his motivation was his philanthropy NOT the moronic dogma of devoutness you proclaim
In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition...His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropist
devout christian principles also existed in medieval torture gardens

what changed was the Age of Enlightnment HUMANISM
not
segregatory hypocrits


Per the BBC:

His dissolute lifestyle changed completely when he became an evangelical Christian, and in 1790 joined a leading group known as the Clapham Sect. His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform, particularly the improvement of factory conditions in Britain.

He worked with the poor, he worked to establish educational reform, prison reform, health care reform and to limit the number of hours children were required to work in factories.

Wilberforce believed that he and his supporters should attempt to cure every social ill in the country.

To deal with many of these problems they established organisations that would work to improve or rectify the particular social injustice that they were dealing with.

Wilberforce also used his large income for good causes, donating generously to charity and cutting the rents he charged the tenants on his land."

Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

pytheas

Quote from: En_Route on April 25, 2012, 03:43:44 PM
Per the BBC:
His dissolute lifestyle changed completely when he became an evangelical Christian, and in 1790 joined a leading group known as the Clapham Sect. His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform, particularly the improvement of factory conditions in Britain.

He worked with the poor, he worked to establish educational reform, prison reform, health care reform and to limit the number of hours children were required to work in factories.

Wilberforce believed that he and his supporters should attempt to cure every social ill in the country.

To deal with many of these problems they established organisations that would work to improve or rectify the particular social injustice that they were dealing with.

Wilberforce also used his large income for good causes, donating generously to charity and cutting the rents he charged the tenants on his land."

That makes him a humanist, a (pre-)socialist, someone with strong empathy motivation. that is genetically determined. His human construction drove him to become interested in aspects of human rights.

"Christian Faith prompted" is pure propaganda,the rest of the article I go along with.

Face it , there are NO CHRISTIANS LEFT after the First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)

Donate everything, give shelter rent-free, from a position of power its easy to look nice
"Not what we have But what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance."
"Freedom is the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency"
"Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little."
by EPICURUS 4th century BCE

penfold

Quote from: pytheas on April 25, 2012, 09:16:24 AM
Christian "morals" do not exist. They borrow a STOIC version of moral code (ancient greek philosophers)  and on top of it apply confusion and exception to what is understood by common sense and common empathy as right and wrong. Read Nietchze : the antichrist, for more explicit detail.

There is an element of truth in this. However it is a very one-sided account. It is true that Christianity does take a lot from the stoics; and for that matter they also crib from Aristotle's ethical system via Aquinas. However in blending ancient philosophical ethical systems with scripture Christians have rendered idiosyncratic moral systems of their own.

Nietzsche's critique has some strengths. The Augustinian tradition (which became dominant in European Christian thought) strongly rejected the body as the seat of sin. Augustine's extraordinary claims (for example: that sex is inherently sinful; that we are all born sinners and do not deserve forgiveness etc...) certainly justified a pretty grim ethical outlook that justified countless instances of barbarism (not to mention the horrendous societal effect of everyone believing that they deserve eternal damnation). In this context Nietzsche is a breath of clear mountain air.

Having said that Nietzsche leads us out into the void with no clear path back. Zarathustra's radical cry of the death of God is hugely profound. As Anscombe points out in Modern Moral Philosophy we were left, post-enlightenment, in a peculiar situation where we have a rule concept of ethics (think ten commandments) but we have killed off the rule-giver (God). So where does that leave us?

Nietzsche's answer that we must re-value for ourselves seems to me hopelessly egocentric. Whether it is the ubermench in Zarathustra or the 'nobleman' in Beyond Good and Evil his new ethical system relates almost exclusively to the individual who can separate themselves from the 'heard' - the man who leaves the market place and climbs up the mountains.

Yet it is surely obvious that ethics are societal, they must arise from interaction, not introspection. In this I find Keirkegaard a nice counterpoint to Nietzsche. Like Nietzsche he points to the absurdity of ethical norms. But having stepped into the void he then comes back. Nietzsche's ubermench cries "No" and wishes to forge his own path; Keirkegaard's Knight of Faith, faced with the same absurdity, cries "Yes" and rejoins society (put in Nietzschian terms, he visits the mountains but lives in the market).

I side with Kiekegaard; Nietzsche's project is hopeless; none of us have the will to forge our own ethical systems. Ethics are collaborative.

As for the question "are Xian morals superior?" I think it hardly matters; our societies (and possibly our genetics) will shape the ethical norms we hold. As the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi might have said: we should go with the flow.

pytheas

Quote from: pytheas on April 25, 2012, 09:16:24 AM
Christian "morals" do not exist. They borrow a STOIC version of moral code (ancient greek philosophers)  and on top of it apply confusion and exception to what is understood by common sense and common empathy as right and wrong. Read Nietchze : the antichrist, for more explicit detail.
Quote from: penfold on April 26, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
It is true that Christianity does take a lot from the stoics.. and also Aristotle's ethical system via Aquinas. However in blending ancient philosophical ethical systems with scripture Christians have rendered idiosyncratic moral systems of their own.
Allowing each one to blend their own f---ng ingredients into their own personal favourite cocktails in the blender, sounds like a better approach,  don't you think?
Quote from: penfold on April 26, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
Having said that Nietzsche leads us out into the void with no clear path back.  post-enlightenment, a peculiar situation where we have a rule concept of ethics  but we have killed off the rule-giver (God?). So where does that leave us?
Try Albert Camus in the sysiphos tale...to the biblemongers I show Nietzsche, to  modern "enlightened and eager to be awakened" reflection i would start with Camus.

obvious that ethics are societal, they must be studied in society, sociology psychology anthropology ethnography i.e. science
"Not what we have But what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance."
"Freedom is the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency"
"Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little."
by EPICURUS 4th century BCE

Tanker

When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.

If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.
"I'd rather die the go to heaven" - William Murderface Murderface  Murderface-

I've been in fox holes, I'm still an atheist -Me-

God is a cake, and we all know what the cake is.

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke.

En_Route

Quote from: Tanker on June 06, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.

If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.

It is a feasible position to distinguish between the barbarism of the OT and the more benevolent (although incoherent and rather garbled) NT. It requires some nimble intellectual gymnastics to achieve this, but nevertheless Christians who are not pro-rape etc still look to the NT as the foundation for their morality.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Stevil

Quote from: Tanker on June 06, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.

If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.
Excellent post.

technolud

My friends are approximately evenly divided among athiest, christian and jewish.

Ranking "morality" from high to low (in a totally non-scientific pulled out of thin air manner):

Atheists
Jews
Christians

I believe the Christian problem is they think they have all the answers.  You know, "God said it, I believe it, end of story".

Jews at least seem to recognize that thier religion has to be interperted.  They discuss it.  They argue about.  I once asked three Jewish brothers if Jews believe in heaven.  The first said yes, the second no, and the third said it didn't matter.  And they all agreed with that.  Very un-christian.

Atheists, they have to figure it out as they go.  They don't have a road map.  In my humble opinion, I think this causes them to act more "morally".

Sweetdeath

Quote from: En_Route on June 07, 2012, 09:07:59 PM
Quote from: Tanker on June 06, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.

If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.

It is a feasible position to distinguish between the barbarism of the OT and the more benevolent (although incoherent and rather garbled) NT. It requires some nimble intellectual gymnastics to achieve this, but nevertheless Christians who are not pro-rape etc still look to the NT as the foundation for their morality.
Cherry picking. The usual. :(
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

En_Route

Quote from: technolud on June 08, 2012, 02:39:38 AM
My friends are approximately evenly divided among athiest, christian and jewish.

Ranking "morality" from high to low (in a totally non-scientific pulled out of thin air manner):

Atheists
Jews
Christians

I believe the Christian problem is they think they have all the answers.  You know, "God said it, I believe it, end of story".



Jews at least seem to recognize that thier religion has to be interperted.  They discuss it.  They argue about.  I once asked three Jewish brothers if Jews believe in heaven.  The first said yes, the second no, and the third said it didn't matter.  And they all agreed with that.  Very un-christian.

Atheists, they have to figure it out as they go.  They don't have a road map.  In my humble opinion, I think this causes them to act more "morally".


So how do you rank competing moralities without a road map? You have to have lready  decided on a set of  what you think are correct moral principles in order to be able to pass any judgement.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).