Do Christian values/morality, as introduced by the New Testament, stand on their own?

Let us say for the sake of argument that god does not exist and the Jesus of the New Testament is soley human and not divine. Are the values put forth in his moral teachings valid in themselves? Are they sound philosophically? I am speaking here of the ethics and prescriptions for human conduct only. Is this the highest moral system?

My thought is that, taken on their own, Christian values do not represent the highest order of morality/ethics. Turning the other cheek, obedience, loving thine enemies, elevation of the "poor in spirit", meekness, and poverty embody a moral system predicated upon weakness. I believe that strong healthy human values include things like pride, assertiveness, disobedience in the face of injustice, retaliation in kind or in self defense, and sometimes strife can be as beneficial to humans as peace. To me those are worldy values that do not contradict a human's nature as the Christian values do.

What is xtian "morality?"

(March 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Do Christian values/morality, as introduced by the New Testament, stand on their own?

Let us say for the sake of argument that god does not exist and the Jesus of the New Testament is soley human and not divine. Are the values put forth in his moral teachings valid in themselves? Are they sound philosophically? I am speaking here of the ethics and prescriptions for human conduct only. Is this the highest moral system?

Nope.

(March 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm)mediamogul Wrote: My thought is that, taken on their own, Christian values do not represent the highest order of morality/ethics. Turning the other cheek, obedience, loving thine enemies, elevation of the "poor in spirit", meekness, and poverty embody a moral system predicated upon weakness. I believe that strong healthy human values include things like pride, assertiveness, disobedience in the face of injustice, retaliation in kind or in self defense, and sometimes strife can be as beneficial to humans as peace. To me those are worldy values that do not contradict a human's nature as the Christian values do.

To elaborate, the Christian values are tailor-made for making man's life on earth hell. They seek to degrade the best within us and seek to elevate the worst (very aptly demonstrated by your points above). The only way they could actually convince people to accept it, was with the promise of a better afterlife or the threat of a worse one.

(March 22, 2012 at 3:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What is xtian "morality?"

I would say the moral teachings of Jesus as outlined in the New Testament. Putting ridiculuous spinoffs and reinterpretations for whatever specific sect agenda aside. For the sake of argument lets say Jesus in the New Testament.

It falls flat as opposed to standing, because Christians interpret the New Testament differently.

For example, I had two conversions with two Christians; the first said God is a vengeful deity and that I'd burn in Hell for all eternity for being a non-believer; the second said God loves me no matter what and would ultimately find a way to reconcile with me no matter how long it would take.

When talking about Morality, one should never invoke belief in gods or lack thereof. Let's stop bastardizing words and lumping a pile of dogmatic dog mess with a something that should only ever be equated to ethics, not religion.

(March 22, 2012 at 4:30 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: It falls flat as opposed to standing, because Christians interpret the New Testament differently.

For example, I had two conversions with two Christians; the first said God is a vengeful deity and that I'd burn in Hell for all eternity for being a non-believer; the second said God loves me no matter what and would ultimately find a way to reconcile with me no matter how long it would take.

When talking about Morality, one should never invoke belief in gods or lack thereof. Let's stop bastardizing words and lumping a pile of dogmatic dog mess with a something that should only ever be equated to ethics, not religion.

Right and the other thing I have always thought too is why wouldnt god just build the rewards for "good" actions right into the actions themselves. It just goes to show how non-self evident christian morality is that they would need to appeal to heaven and hell to bait people into obeying their rules. Good philosophy has contained with in it its own logic external to claims of supernatural justification.

(March 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm)mediamogul Wrote: My thought is that, taken on their own, Christian values do not represent the highest order of morality/ethics. Turning the other cheek, obedience, loving thine enemies, elevation of the "poor in spirit", meekness, and poverty embody a moral system predicated upon weakness. I believe that strong healthy human values include things like pride, assertiveness, disobedience in the face of injustice, retaliation in kind or in self defense, and sometimes strife can be as beneficial to humans as peace. To me those are worldy values that do not contradict a human's nature as the Christian values do.

Christianity is different because it is based on love. There are two sides of every quality: love and selfishness. Pride, for example, is destructive behind selfish motives. Self-confidence is pride's love counterpart, and is very good. Assertiveness is also good when used with love--remember, Jesus was very assertive. He was meek when being assertive would not have helped his purpose (like during his trial). In a perfect world, everyone would love one another like themselves. There would be no need to disobey authorities because the authorities would love their subjects and help them as best they could.

Think about every attribute you consider to be good which you don't think Christianity considers good. Then think "what is no one had this? Would I personally still need it?" Sometimes people use qualities like pride in self-defense to everyone else's pride. But if everyone was completely self-sacrificial it would no longer be necessary. Likewise, if every person was honest, there would be no reason to be skeptical or cautious. Don't bother buying a car lock because no one is going to steal your car anyway! In our world of sin it can be hard to turn the other cheek. A slave would inevitably sin when trying to get free of their master. War, even for the best of causes, breaks God's moral code. But God knows we sometimes have to sin to do good. It's why he told the Hebrews to take over Israel, and allowed divorce in the Mosaic law. In Matthew 9:18 Jesus says, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." In other words, divorce always involves sin. But a greater amount of sin can be avoided by undergoing it in certain circumstances (when your spouse no longer respects you and causes you to sin whenever you try to reconcile with him/her).

It is human nature to be selfish. Even our physical bodies cause us to sin with the needs they have, which is why we have "original sin." Every other moral code allows inner selfishness. That's the difference between Christianity and other religions. Christianity defines sin as even thinking selfish thoughts. In other religions, your actions are all that matters. In other words, a Muslim can hate a poor person but as long as they give alms they will go to heaven. The five pillars of Islam say nothing of intent. They earn their salvation by what they physically do. Christians understand that we can never earn salvation. We are steeped in sin, and where is the cutoff? Just how much "good" does one have to do to offset the "bad"? The Bible tells us that only one sin is required to break the law--just as a million charity projects won't erase the death sentence of one murder. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That's why we need Jesus to take the sentence for us. The world is dead in sin. Jesus, the only human who has loved perfectly, offers us a gift. All we have to do is say we're sorry for our sins, love God and our neighbor, and accept his gift.

1 John 4:8-18:
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us...
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

(March 22, 2012 at 7:04 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(March 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm)mediamogul Wrote: My thought is that, taken on their own, Christian values do not represent the highest order of morality/ethics. Turning the other cheek, obedience, loving thine enemies, elevation of the "poor in spirit", meekness, and poverty embody a moral system predicated upon weakness. I believe that strong healthy human values include things like pride, assertiveness, disobedience in the face of injustice, retaliation in kind or in self defense, and sometimes strife can be as beneficial to humans as peace. To me those are worldy values that do not contradict a human's nature as the Christian values do.

Christianity is different because it's based on love. There are two sides of every quality: love and selfishness. Pride, for example, is destructive behind selfish motives. Self-confidence is pride's love counterpart, and is very good. Assertiveness is also good when used with love--remember, Jesus was very assertive. He was meek when being assertive would not have helped his purpose (like during his trial). In a perfect world, everyone would love one another like themselves. There would be no need to disobey authorities because the authorities would love their subjects and help them as best they could.

This is essentially the moral system that divides the seperate levels of hell, purgatory, and heaven in the Divine Comedy. What you proposed I believe is a bit of a simplification of this system. Dante's system was based upon Aristotle and his philosophy of opposing extremes and the "golden mean" between the two. For instance two sides of the same coin are the spendthrift and the miser one spends frivolously and one saves greedily. The golden mean being the one who is prudent with his/her money. Dante then informed it with the Christian concept of "love". As to the final comment, it is weak to allow yourself to be crucified without putting up a fight or at least mounting a defense. Revolution is an appropriate response to tyranny. Rebellion is an appropriate response to oppression. The meek are not blessed. They are controlled.

[/quote]
Think about every attribute you consider to be good which you don't think Christianity considers good. Then think "what is no one had this? Would I personally still need it?" Sometimes people use qualities like pride in self-defense to everyone else's pride. But if everyone was completely self-sacrificial it would no longer be necessary. Likewise, if every person was honest, there would be no reason to be skeptical or cautious. Don't bother buying a car lock because no one is going to steal your car anyway! In our world of sin it can be hard to turn the other cheek. A slave would inevitably sin when trying to get free of their master. War, even for the best of causes, breaks God's moral code. But God knows we sometimes have to sin to do good. It's why told the Hebrews to take over Israel, or allowed divorce in the Mosaic law. In Matthew 9:18 Jesus says, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." In other words, divorce always involves sin. But a greater amount of sin can be avoided by doing it in certain circumstances (when your spouse no longer respects you and causes you to sin whenever you try to reconcile with him/her).
[/quote]

This isn't Christianity, this is the categorical imperative. "I should act in such a way that I may will that my maxim become a universal law." That was Kant. The golden rule as formulated in the bible doesn't quite fit the same wide reaching meaning as the categorical imperative. For instance "If I was oppressing someone I would want them to rebel" is how this statement would be under the golden rule. Clearly it presents a self-contradiction. Here it is formulated with the categorical imperative "If anyone were oppressing anyone then the oppressed person should rebel."

[/quote]
It is human nature to be selfish. Even our physical bodies cause us to sin with the needs they have, which is why we have "original sin." Every other moral code allows inner selfishness. That's the difference between Christianity and other religions. Christianity defines sin as even thinking selfish thoughts. In other religions, your actions are all that matters. In other words, a Muslim can hate a poor person but as long as they give alms they will go to heaven. The five pillars of Islam say nothing of intent. They earn their salvation by what they physically do. Christians understand that we can never earn salvation. We are steeped in sin, and where is the cutoff? Just how much "good" does one have to do to offset the "bad"? The Bible tells us that only one sin is required to break the law--just as a million charity projects won't erase the death sentence of one murder. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That's why we need Jesus to take the sentence for us. The world is dead in sin. Jesus, the only human who has loved perfectly, offers us a gift. All we have to do is say we're sorry for our sins, love God and our neighbor, and accept his gift.
[/quote]

This is basically an admission that christian morality is anti-natural and an immediate appeal to supernatural causes to validate it. Which proves the point I was trying to make. I would rephrase "It is in a humans interest to look out for their own needs." Biologically this makes a lot of sense. Biologically our impulses, drives and instincts make a lot of sense. It's when we try to make them fit in an anti-natural morality that they become problematic. Plus it keeps us in sin, which the church likes because then we need and are subservient to them.

The term 'Christian morality' is too vague to be meaningful;there is no consensus..

It depends on which Christian you ask. A graphic example; we have a new Christian-apologist member here who actually argued there is nothing wrong with slavery,and he is not the first we have had here.


PLUS Christianity is an entirely derivative religion, with no original ideas,, moral code or theology.

(March 22, 2012 at 8:31 pm)padraic Wrote: The term 'Christian morality' is too vague to be meaningful;there is no consensus..

It depends on which Christian you ask. A graphic example; we have a new Christian-apologist member here who actually argued there is nothing wrong with slavery,and he is not the first we have had here.


PLUS Christianity is an entirely derivative religion, with no original ideas,, moral code or theology.

That is fair. Can we agree that the Jesus of the NT does make some prescriptions for how a person ought to act? The beatitudes for instance from the sermon on the mount, the golden rule, etc...