Maximizing Moral Virtue

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Leaving aside for now the thorny question of what constitutes ‘good moral values’, I think probably the best method of ensuring that your children have the values you want them to have is to lead by example.

I like the "thorny" question better than the question asked in the OP. I feel like if you could give a good answer to the thorny question, the answer to the OP question would follow naturally and effortlessly. Also, you agreed with Aristotle in your post. That doesn't happen very often, so I thought I'd point it out.

There are three questions in the OP. Which one did you have in mind?

I'm happy to learn that you monitor my posts looking for Aristotelian agreement. Nice to have a hobby, I suppose.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I feel like the question of weather or not we should just allow people to follow their own human nature is a difficult one to answer. It seems to me that when people lose confidence in the authorities appointed over them chaos tends to follow, at least for a short while until a new power takes over. More recently we saw this with the Jan 6 protest, but we're also seeing a lot of rioting and looting spread across the U.S. as a whole, mostly due to our dis-satisfaction with politics and justice.

Absolutely agree, for better and for worse.  We live in gentle times, so this might escape us...but sometimes...chaos is an improvement on the enforced morality of an institution.

Former slaves littering the country rootless and directionless and possibly even angry..being better than the institution of slavery, for example.  Chaos preferable to some order.

On the one hand I feel like if kids are given some form of proper guidance then it is highly likely that they will turn out decent, even if they do have to rebel for about a decade or so after turning 13. My basic idea is simple: 

     Good leaders > anarchy > bad leaders. 

As above, what about bad leaders>anarchy>good leaders?  When I think of a more hands off approach to morality, that stands out as a good application.  If bad leaders are the ones with their hands on, then a hands off approach may result in some anarchy or reshuffling...but, if people are fundamentally good (or at least better than whatever institution was enforcing norms beforehand) then the resultant leaders in the new moral paradigm will be an improvement over the old.

IMO, that's the short version of the long story of theistic norms eroding and being broken.  There are theistic institutions.but theism itself is an institution.  

Any authoritarian structure can become corrupted, any household can be divided by strife. In the end I feel like it all depends on our own strength of will as well as our ability to go against the grain if it means doing what we genuinely believe to be good, not just for ourselves but for our community.

Agree again, however, what if some institutions are bad..not because they're corrupted, but because they're premised on a fundamentally bad ideology?  It isn't so much that they're doing the right thing the wrong way, as they're doing the wrong thing the right way.  I notice that contemporary christians often feel that their religious institutions have been corrupted.  From the outside looking in, though, contemporary christianity is simply an improvement over those older notions.  The institutions weren't corrupted in any meaningful sense...contemporaries have written themselves a new non-traditional religion.

Do you think this might be a good example of moral introspection over moral instruction?

[h311inac311]

I'm trying my best here to understand your final line of reasoning. So I think what you are getting at is the idea that Christianity is fundamentally a flawed system? And by flawed that could mean divergent from what Christ himself would've wanted if he were alive today. Or that Christ himself was a flawed bedrock to build a church on to begin with.

For the first statement, yes I believe that Jesus would have many things to say about our endlessly sub-divided modern understanding of Christian doctrine which focuses more on reading the word and winning intellectual arguments about which theology is "correct" and dividing yourself from those condemned as "incorrect".
Jesus prayed for unity in the Garden before he was crucified but today we have defied that commandment wholesale. Beyond division we no longer drive demons out of a person's body and rarely do we heal the sick or perform miraculous feats by way of the holy spirit. These signs and wonders were meant to signify the move of God and distinguish it from a casual book study. Within the church we hear small stories here an there of prayers being answered but rarely do we see these things on display.

I really could go on and on about the protestant movement and how we are still in some senses still trying to re-connect with that original church recorded about in Acts. The disciples have long since passed away and the Roman Catholic Church took over for well over a millennia. So a lot of what we call "protestantism" is just a reaction to what we view as herasy within the RCC as revealed by the more recent translations of our Bible (The KJV, Geneva, and Tyndale versions). We've had about 500 years to protest the catholic church and create our own version of Christianity and it has led to many arguments and many divisions. My hope is that someday soon we will all begin to unite as followers of the way again, valuing unity over debate and not being prideful of our limited understanding of divine doctrine.

The second statement I think touches more on what an atheist would posit, that this Christ person was a fool and a liar whom no one should have ever placed any faith in to begin with so any attempt at re-connecting with the true Christ would be futile since all we will discover is some schizophrenic lunatic who thought himself to be God.
Personally I think that if the book of Acts were happening all around you, the blind being able to see because they attended a local Bible study. Violent schizophrenics who cut themselves and behave irrationally and violently having their demons removed and cast out. The deaf hearing, and prophets foretelling the future I think that the atheist would at least have to be a bit more curious as opposed to skeptical.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you really trying your best? I want to make a point here so that you sit for..what, 60 seconds? Not too much - and think about that.

Divergent from what christ thought? Certainly, absolutely, and inarguably. The man in the book was a man of his time. You might feel compelled to assert that jesus is the good leader in your good leaders>anarchy>bad leaders.....but....he (allegedly) held and espoused views that would get a bitch canceled today - if not thrown in prison or executed by SF. The thing that's interesting, is that contemporary christians in the US, by demographic weight, do not. Contemporary christians do not agree with jesus on this..and many other issues

Is this a benefit of a more hands off approach to morality? The approach you advocate for.

As to the other thing. The book of acts is fiction, even bible thumping bible scholars recognize that the book of acts is pure invention........but that doesn't really matter to me. We can assert for the absolute lulz that the book of acts is true, and that changes nothing about my life. Your religion is evil, that's why I'm not a christian. That's more relevant to me than the fact that your god does not exist. Welcome to Af. I hope I'm never so unfortunate as to be so unwell that I cut chunks out of myself while babbling about an abrahamic god and his ghostly buddies, by any description.......? Attend a local bible study? I'm from the deep old south. Would you wager you immortal soul on knowing more about what's in magic book than I do? Are you wholly committed to this line of reasoning that must assume that any divergent view, catholic or atheist.... is a product of ignorance and infamiliarity?

Perhaps I'm extremely knowledgeable about christian views..past and present...and I'm asking you this question because of that. Is what so many contemporary christians deride as the moral death or moral decay of society a product of a more hands off view...leveraging what a person might simply notice or discover, absent rigorous moral misinstruction by christians? Is that a possibility, for you? Maybe there was never any way..as a singular and pure and original thing..in the first place? But even if there were would you expect a more hands off approach to round up or down to whatever that way is...and...if so...why has the majority of the world..and even the majority of the christian world, missed whatever that is?

My ultimate reasoning, as you try to feel it out......some christ being a flawed bedrock. Well, yeah...vicarious redemption..... when's the last time you purchased a blood diamond for your loved one(s)..? Never? Yeah, me neither.

[h311inac311]

Are you really trying your best?  I want to make a point here so that you sit for..what, 60 seconds?  Not too much - and think about that.  

Divergent from what christ thought?  Certainly, absolutely, and inarguably.  The man in the book was a man of his time.  You might feel compelled to assert that jesus is the good leader in your good leaders>anarchy>bad leaders.....but....he (allegedly) held and espoused views that would get a bitch canceled today - if not thrown in prison or executed by SF.  The thing that's interesting, is that contemporary christians in the US, by demographic weight, do not.  Contemporary christians do not agree with jesus on this..and many other issues

Is this a benefit of a more hands off approach to morality?  The approach you advocate for.

As to the other thing.   The book of acts is fiction, even bible thumping bible scholars recognize that the book of acts is pure invention........but that doesn't really matter to me.  We can assert for the absolute lulz that the book of acts is true, and that changes nothing about my life.  Your religion is evil, that's why I'm not a christian.  That's more relevant to me than the fact that your god does not exist.  Welcome to Af.  I hope I'm never so unfortunate as to be so unwell that I cut chunks out of myself while babbling about an abrahamic god and his ghostly buddies, by any description.......?  Attend a local bible study?  I'm from the deep old south.  Would you wager you immortal soul on knowing more about what's in magic book than I do?  Are you wholly committed to this line of reasoning that must assume that any divergent view, catholic or atheist.... is a product of ignorance and infamiliarity?

Perhaps I'm extremely knowledgeable about christian views..past and present...and I'm asking you this question because of that.  Is what so many contemporary christians deride as the moral death or moral decay of society a product of a more hands off view...leveraging what a person might simply notice or discover, absent rigorous moral misinstruction by christians?  Is that a possibility, for you?  Maybe there was never any way..as a singular and pure and original thing..in the first place?  But even if there were would you expect a more hands off approach to round up or down to whatever that way is...and...if so...why has the majority of the world..and even the majority of the christian world, missed whatever that is?

My ultimate reasoning, as you try to feel it out......some christ being a flawed bedrock.  Well, yeah...vicarious redemption..... when's the last time you purchased a blood diamond for your loved one(s)..?  Never?  Yeah, me neither.

"Judge not that ye not be judged."

My hands off approach is more how I would handle things if I were a governor or a president who has been given a chance to reform education. The Bible would be one of the books that kids would be able to check out at the library and write book reports on but it wouldn't be forced on them. The hands off approach is so that kids can form their own identity and understand why they believe what they believe. Ultimately you can't be a follower of Christ if you never put the net down and choose to follow him. God doesn't just want your mind, he is far more concerned about your heart as well as your actions. This is why you can't force any religion on anyone and every attempt to force religion on kids is immoral IMO. You either get a mindless zombie who recites the songs and the prayers hoping that their parents will praise them for it or you get a rebellious and violent kid who hates religion for the way their parents pushed it on them. 

When you say that Christ taught things which modern Christians don't agree with (or would get cancelled for) I would be interested as to what you are referring to specifically. No I wouldn't wage my immortal soul on who knows more about this supernatural book. As for the Catholic church I know this is a massive issue but for the most part, as I understand it, the entire protestant movement was sparked by William Tyndale and King James as they made it their mission to translate the Bible into the common language of the day and distribute it to as many people as possible. The Catholic church was Rome's way of dealing with a spiritual rebellion which rejected their gods and had people no longer willing to make sacrifices unto them. Their first solution was just executing Christians but due to their resilience the gospel only spread further and wider as stories of these brave men and women who were willing to die for their God spread across Rome.

So The Roman government figured, "If you can't beat em join em," and that's when Constantine formed the Roman Catholic Church as a way to re-unite Rome and combine the Roman mythology with Christian practices. The goal was simple, create a Christo-Roman hybrid religion that has pagan gods wearing saint-like masks so that both the pagans and the Christians can attend church together. This was a much more successful way of slowing the move of god than just chopping Christian's heads off. The term "protestant" means that you are one who protests the Catholic church. I had a friend in college who liked to call himself a protestant atheist for this very reason given that he was raised Catholic.

I don't think that Catholics (especially in the modern day) are ignorant of the Bible, I don't think this of atheists or any other division of the body of Christ either. Knowledge of the word is one thing but action is a far more important act of worship than belief or argument. I do hope I never spoke with you, or any other person on this forum, as though they are ignorant of the most common book on earth. I know you guys have reasons for why you've chosen not to believe as I myself have gone down the atheist YouTube rabbit hole myself and wound up challenging my own beliefs as a result. But after I had heard just about every argument for atheism I just simply wasn't convinced. 

When it comes to moral decay I think that is a result of the church separating itself from the Holy Spirit which should be its primary sustainer. Most modern churches you walk into today don't just lack the Holy Spirit but also the fruit thereof. How many Christian leaders strike you as peaceful? or Joyful? or Patient? or Kind? at a glance the New Testament is full of loving and encouraging words written by the apostles to the church groups that they helped start. But how often do we see Christians building each other up with encouragement? As someone who was raised in a Church and am still in attendance I can tell you that Christian fellowship is a fairly rare thing in these United States, most of the time all you get is a judgmental reading of the book followed by people judging themselves, their country as well as each other, endlessly analyzing themselves and those around them for flaws. You probably wouldn't choose to be friends with someone who is like this, would you? And yet we are told, by our savior, not to judge unless we ourselves are pure enough to make a judgment. But more importantly we are called to be a light or a beacon to this perishing world, a city set on a hill. In my home church there are many intellectuals who have gone to seminary, who know a fair bit of Greek who can argue and reason their position to you for hours, but what we lack is compassion towards each other. My church was very charitable, but what they lacked was a sense of compassion for those who had been with them for a long time. 

After I had gotten my heart-broken at the ripe old age of 17 I went into the worst downward spiral of my whole life. I felt lost, I felt like no one knew how to empathize with me, I felt like I was abandoned by everyone in my family. Sure, they did take me to some pill salesmen and I did end up finding a good counselor, but as I spoke with this counselor I realized something, I like him because A. he listens to me and B. he acts like whatever I tell him must somehow be significant. My insurance was paying him $50/hr just so I could have a real friend. My parents only listen from a standpoint of pious superiority and so they will hardly ever acknowledge their own weaknesses in front of me. Most people in my Bible study group are similar, because I was struggling to find purpose, meaning and acceptance I was treated as an outcast. Because I needed the church that I went to daycare in they treated me like a vagabond. I felt like I didn't have a home or a family, and I've felt this way for quite some time now. They have brain knowledge of the word but, asaide from being good citizens who work hard and cross their T's and dot their I's they're too wealthy to care for the poor in spirit. 

For the most part I think being hands off is about allowing someone to come to their own conclusions as well as challenge your deeply held beliefs without you asserting that your mind is divine and that they are a sinner for questioning you. I'm confident that through prayer and action Christians can do a wonderful job actually demonstrating their religion without being overly preachy or judgmental as though they are above you looking down on you from their lofty seat at their self-appointed throne. The Pharisees were those who considered their interpretation of the law to be law. They saw Moses 1,600 laws and thought to themselves "that's not enough, we need more laws, more judgement, more condemnation for the congregation." and so they sought to outlaw anything which might lead to a law being broken, establishing a strict code that forbade everyone from entering the kingdom of God. This is my view of those who value Judgment over compassion. You have to show people the love of Christ before they will ever accept his judgment.

We worship a man who once described himself as gentle and lowly, does this description match your local pastor? Do the values of humility and kindness seem evident in the way that your local church congregation acts towards one another? Or do they seem austere and Judgy?

[The Grand Nudger]

Bit of a cultist, idk how we’re going to proceed if you need a fact checker every few lines.

I’m the worst about that shit. As for the immorality of Christ…it’s a fair bet that if you haven’t already seen it on the page, and in concept, nothing I have to say on the matter will register. I just figured you should know I’m not one of those guys you have to spend any time making batshit assertions about the reality of acts with. Saving you the trouble of a wall of revisionism and fantasy, I’d hoped…but I see that was wasted effort itself, now.

You might want to revisit your ideas of why Catholicism did what it did. It’s very probably the -only- reason you have your religion today. Hell of a debt you Protestants owe. Ofc, you both owe a hell of a debt to the pagans…but if you can’t genuinely acknowledge your relationships to each other there’s little chance of you acknowledging that.

I think you do have a point about the body of the faith on your own end. Just as the body of faith(and judging by that response se…you too) would reject the moral message of christ on its own grounds….they also reject any nod to basic kindness that Christian immorality wraps itself in for cover and improved sales oppurtunities.

Personally, my experience with Christian’s and their faith is limited in my day to day life to just the one I married…,who’s certainly a true Christian by all of the positive identifiers you’d like to focus on..,,though this doesn’t matter much to a pastor, priest, or any other witchdoctor….and to hear the story told, Christ didn’t place a huge value on them either. Being a kind and moral person doesn’t get you a golden ticket.

She had a strong and explicit Christian upbringing. Evangelical. Doesn’t seem to have made her violent or rebellious, unless rebellion is counted in mere disagreement with one’s parents or culture.

[h311inac311]

Bit of a cultist, idk how we’re going to proceed if you need a fact checker every few lines.

I’m the worst about that shit.  As for the immorality of Christ…it’s a fair bet that if you haven’t already seen it on the page, and in concept, nothing I have to say on the matter will register.  I just figured you should know I’m not one of those guys you have to spend any time making batshit assertions about the reality of acts with.  Saving you the trouble of a wall of revisionism and fantasy, I’d hoped…but I see that was wasted effort itself, now.

You might want to revisit your ideas of why Catholicism did what it did.  It’s very probably the -only- reason you have your religion today.  Hell of a debt you Protestants owe.  Ofc, you both owe a hell of a debt to the pagans…but if you can’t genuinely acknowledge your relationships to each other there’s little chance of you acknowledging that.

I think you do have a point about the body of the faith on your own end.  Just as the body of faith(and judging by that response se…you too) would reject the moral message of christ on its own grounds….they also reject any nod to basic kindness that Christian immorality wraps itself in for cover and improved sales oppurtunities.

Personally, my experience with Christian’s and their faith is limited in my day to day life to just the one I married…,who’s certainly a true Christian by all of the positive identifiers you’d like to focus on..,,though this doesn’t matter much to a pastor, priest, or any other witchdoctor….and to hear the story told, Christ didn’t place a huge value on them either.  Being a kind and moral person doesn’t get you a golden ticket.

She had a strong and explicit Christian upbringing.  Evangelical.  Doesn’t seem to have made her violent or rebellious, unless rebellion is counted in mere disagreement with one’s parents or culture.

Feel free to check a history book if you want to, but I am of the opinion that the move of Christ was largely stifled by the Roman Catholic church as it sought to create this legalistic spread of the good news. The Holy Spirit was doing a fine job as God's minister unto the people. In fact I have heard that in areas where missionaries proselytize without a Bible the Holy Spirit spreads much faster than when it is spread by those who constantly insist on keeping your nose within the book. We are human, and our intellect is limited so we are fallible to come to the wrong interpretations of God's Holy Word.

Catholicism is a mixed bag of good bad and ugly, they appointed themselves as the authorities over Jesus and in doing so have caused a tremendous amount of grief. Is every pope infallible in your view? Have you come to defend the holy Roman empire? Or are they just as fallible as any other priest? In my view Christianity was maintained in spite of, not by pagans or universalists. For without the holy spirit all we have is a human book written by human hands spread with human knowledge and understanding. What is good about the church is whatever has been blessed by the Holy spirit, and what is bad about the church is whatever is being stubbornly pursued without confirmation. 

You keep saying that Jesus is immoral but refuse to provide any examples of why you think this way. If anything I prefer you keep your accusations to yourself but if you aren't even willing to express them then how could I take them seriously? 

Sales opportunities? You do realize that Christ flipped the tables over for a reason right? My point here is simple, if we let Jesus be the judge then the vast majority of Churches are falling short. That's what the New Testament largely is, a collection of letters written by apostles for churches to confirm which parts of Jesus' teaching they are following and which parts they are falling short of.

So as far as I can tell no church was found to be without error in the sight of God so all have a higher standard to aspire to. Your wife sounds like a wonderful person, you see I think that the reason why Jesus can get such a bad rep is because he was constantly being contradicted by the teachers of the law which gets back to my point about the universal church. In my view they are the Pharisees of our day, the ones who cloak themselves in man-made traditions in order to appear as though they are spiritually wealthy. So when they confront Christ with superiority he humbles them with the truth. Perhaps this is why you hate Jesus so much, because he claims to know and stand for truth, because he holds the ultimate authority on this point. 

I highly recommend you read a book titled, "Gentle and Lowly" I think it will help you to understand God's true heart for those who suffer and who have been humbled by life's troubles.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your opinions are all well and good as far as opinions go - but there are opinions…and there are facts. The rcc incorporated pagan deities as saints or iconography because it was a good way to spread the faith. You might even be aware, as a Christian, that people resist giving up their holidays in cultural or individual conversion. The rcc had a policy of not letting the plebs read magic book…so, in that, they effected the same scenario as a contemporary book-less carnival barker. Meanwhile, outside of the rcc, the Christian faith had entirely failed to launch. Whether you believe in some silly demigod or not..that’s the actual history of the human movement.

As to the demigod overturning tables…yeah, there’s a very specific reason that story is told. To establish its protagonist as the only licensed supplier of the product in question. In mere reality, it’s a miracle hiding in plain site. He’d never have survived the beating he got that day to be crucified later. This is why that story isn’t included in any description of a historical Jesus. It’s highly thematic, and wildly a-factual. Just like acts, from before.

As to the rest, you’ll likely already be aware of narrative details that require a person to twist their scrotum into a knot arguing up is down and black is white….as an answer for their faith. These hardly need to be bickered over…imo…because the very concept of Christ is fundamentally and explicitly immoral. The abrogation of moral consequence over items of moral import by spilling the blood of a third party . From the perspective of any cogent notion of moral virtue- vicarious redemption is a raging dumpster-fire.

If the idea is to maximize moral virtue- then Christianity as a belief in Christ works counterproductively with respect to that end. A minimally moral agent acts in good conscience insomuch as they can, and accepts the consequences of their acts, likewise, when they fall short. Your belief in Christ amounts to nothing more, morally, than a naked attempt to flee what you consider just consequences for bad action and states of affairs. This, frankly, may be maximally immoral, because it’s capable of making a complete mockery of any previously asserted moral item….and that’s -before- the nuts and bolts amount to the murder of the better man.

[The Grand Nudger]

- and I’d really love to hammer something in here, so that we’re having a convo as equals without any absurd expectations of the other. Just as I’m perfectly content to allow that you will not come to my moral view, you could allow that you’re not speaking to a winnable soul. Come to Jesus pulp fiction just isn’t my genre.

[Fake Messiah]

 You keep saying that Jesus is immoral but refuse to provide any examples of why you think this way.

Well, when was the last time you heard some Christian pluck his eye(s) because he looked at some woman and thought she was handsome? Or when was the last time you heard some Christian amputate his arm to prevent himself from masturbation? Or castrated himself for God? Or sold all his possessions and gave money to the poor?

The answer is almost never because those are all rantings of a vile lunatic and Christians ignore them as such, but they should be honest and admit that most of Jesus's teachings are insane and vile.