Challenge regarding Christian morality

[Lek]

You seem to be suggesting married people should stay together even when they are no longer happy. What is the point of that? Two people are miserable, and no one is benefiting. Sure, it is a legal contract, but it is one that can be terminated legally as well. I understand that to you this has religious implications, but I'm not discussing that. Just morality regarding wellbeing.

"Loving" your enemies I wouldn't take literally as a good moral teaching. Love is a very extreme word. You can still want the best for them, within reason. It's too vague to mean much, for example if your "enemy" is someone you are fighting in a war, you can't love them while shooting at them, not in any meaningful way. So it's wildly open to interpretation. I think the most sensible one is to separate people from their actions, or past actions at least. I think that's an obvious way to think. The fact that people may hate their enemies doesn't mean they are unaware of such thinking, or the benefits, but can be just that they don't want to think that way or that they are too much of an enemy to deserve their thoughts.

Just because people aren't following certain moral actions, doesn't mean they aren't aware of such actions and that they would be moral. No one acts morally all the time, and some people are more selfish than others and don't care too much about morals.

Yes. I am suggesting that a married couple stay together even though they are not happy. Of course, when a christian marries he does make a commitment to God as well as his spouse and I can't remove that from my opinion. Even not considering the religious factor, if there are children involved, one should consider the welfare of the children, as well as his own happiness. People say that it's better to raise the children with one loving parent rather that two fighting parents, but if they really love the children they will work to resolve their differences and to maintain a peaceful and loving environment in the home. At work there are certain individuals we like and others that we can't stand, but we maintain a peaceful working environment, so why can't we live at peace with someone whom we were totally in love with?

Even without the religious factor, I do view it as a lack of moral integrity to make a promise and then back out on it; especially if one spouse is against the divorce and the other one forces it , as is often the case. Of course, I don't recommend staying together in a case where there is damaging abuse or when one spouse is continually committing adultery, and the bible would confirm this. I've found through my own marriage experience, that a couple can experience a growth in love and maturity by working through problems simply because we're committed to staying together. We have happy a marriage now, but I'm fairly certain that we would have been divorced had we believed differently, so we've been rewarded for standing by our our commitment to each other.

I'll agree that you're right in believing that "loving your enemies" does involve separating the individual from the act. "Loving your enemies" is completely counter to our human nature. When we manage to do that we are resisting our natural human urges. Adhering to christian morality in many instances is going counter to our innate human nature and being in step with our spiritual nature. Sometimes that involves choosing to do right rather than choosing to do what makes us happy. I also agree that we often know what is right, but simply choose to act against that knowledge.

[robvalue]

I've heard many, many cases where couples who can't stand being around each other any more separate, and this is way better for the children. And the cases where they fight and stay together, such as my parents, result in it being worse for the kids.

I appreciate your honest answers, it is very refreshing. I would agree that loving enemies is about the least obvious from among the possible positive moral teachings. I would still find it obvious myself, but I can't speak for everyone. It does require our critical thinking to overcome our emotions, in a lot of situations.

[Lek]

I've heard many, many cases where couples who can't stand being around each other any more separate, and this is way better for the children. And the cases where they fight and stay together, such as my parents, result in it being worse for the kids.

You've identified a problem where couples stay together and fight all the time and it's worse for the kids than if they separated. This is where christian teaching comes in. They have fallen out of romantic love for each other. But if they had the "real" love for each other and the children, which is the love we're supposed to have for all people, they would refrain from fighting and instead demonstrate "true" love. This love is shown by giving up their desires to "get back" at each other and instead live in harmony for the good of the family. We do this in other life situations all the time. This is what we're called upon by God to do. Often relationships are healed in this way, but again we must act counter to our own desires for our own immediate gratification. Morality seems to most often occur when we act against what our natural tendencies push us to do.

I appreciate your honest answers, it is very refreshing. I would agree that loving enemies is about the least obvious from among the possible positive moral teachings. I would still find it obvious myself, but I can't speak for everyone. It does require our critical thinking to overcome our emotions, in a lot of situations.

Thanks. It's nice to know that we have some common ground on moral issues.

[watchamadoodle]

Here is another Christian innovation to morality: "vicarius redemption" / "substitutionary atonement"

Technically speaking, substitutionary atonement is the name given to a number of Christian models of the atonement that all regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

Of course, the scapegoat concept is not original to Christianity. Here is a quote from wikipedia about the use of a goat, but I read somewhere that this concept was also used on humans. The king would designate somebody else as king and then kill that king to appease the gods for any of his mistakes during the year.

A concept superficially similar to the biblical scapegoat is attested in two ritual texts in archives at Ebla of the 24th century BC.[10] They were connected with ritual purification on the occasion of the king's wedding. In them, a she-goat with a silver bracelet hung from her neck was driven forth into the wasteland of "Alini"; "we" in the report of the ritual involves the whole community. Such "elimination rites", in which an animal, without confession of sins, is the vehicle of evils (not sins) that are chased from the community are widely attested in the Ancient Near East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

[Esquilax]

You've identified a problem where couples stay together and fight all the time and it's worse for the kids than if they separated. This is where christian teaching comes in. They have fallen out of romantic love for each other. But if they had the "real" love for each other and the children, which is the love we're supposed to have for all people, they would refrain from fighting and instead demonstrate "true" love. This love is shown by giving up their desires to "get back" at each other and instead live in harmony for the good of the family. We do this in other life situations all the time. This is what we're called upon by God to do. Often relationships are healed in this way, but again we must act counter to our own desires for our own immediate gratification. Morality seems to most often occur when we act against what our natural tendencies push us to do.

So basically you attempt to resolve the problem by defining a second, "real" type of love into existence by fiat assertion, without demonstrating that this love for all people is even possible, and... that's it? Problem exists, just make up a type of thing that solves the problem, and in your mind the problem is solved merely by dint of the fact that you could manufacture an answer out of thin air?

How do you know this "real" love is a realistic proposition for an average person? Or that it's even helpful or productive in the least?

[Lek]

So basically you attempt to resolve the problem by defining a second, "real" type of love into existence by fiat assertion, without demonstrating that this love for all people is even possible, and... that's it? Problem exists, just make up a type of thing that solves the problem, and in your mind the problem is solved merely by dint of the fact that you could manufacture an answer out of thin air?

How do you know this "real" love is a realistic proposition for an average person? Or that it's even helpful or productive in the least?

I think there is a difference between what i'd call romantic love and true love. Often people get married because it's what they want for themselves. They see it as something that will make them happy. They really aren't prepared to hang in if the marriage doesn't provide them that happiness. They don't see a greater morality in staying in the marriage, even when children are involved. I just think saying that "the children will be better off apart because we fight all the time, is a way of saying "I don't want to sacrifice my own happiness and work to make peace in the household." Do you think it is impossible for a couple to put aside their differences and make a good marriage through love and their own human effort?

I'm speaking generally here. I'm not trying to be "holier than thou" and assume to be able to look into anyone's marriage and judge how they should act. I'm stating how I interpret christian moral principles and how I have applied them to my own marriage.

[robvalue]

The problem with love your enemy is that the bible also teaches an eye for an eye. So you are left to choose between those two extremes; in other words it has taught you nothing, you pick how you already feel. Or maybe which best suits your current situation.

[Davka]

You've identified a problem where couples stay together and fight all the time and it's worse for the kids than if they separated. This is where christian teaching comes in. They have fallen out of romantic love for each other. But if they had the "real" love for each other and the children, which is the love we're supposed to have for all people, they would refrain from fighting and instead demonstrate "true" love. This love is shown by giving up their desires to "get back" at each other and instead live in harmony for the good of the family. We do this in other life situations all the time. This is what we're called upon by God to do. Often relationships are healed in this way, but again we must act counter to our own desires for our own immediate gratification.

This all sounds very good, but it doesn't work in most real-life situations. In order for a couple to determine to do the loving thing and stay together in order to raise their kids (the only situation in which I agree that couples have a moral obligation to try to work things out), both people in that couple have to be relatively self-aware, emotionally healthy individuals. Unfortunately, most people are not very self-aware, and lots of people were raised in such a shitty situation that they are deeply emotionally scarred.

People who cannot see themselves clearly - as in, admit to themselves what their faults are as well as allowing themselves an occasional pat on the back - are not going to be capable of making a relationship work. Even Christian couples counselors are aware of this, and will often suggest a 'trial separation' during which both partners are going to therapy individually. If that doesn't work, the next step is to remain "married" but live separately. This, of course, is merely a hypocritical "keep the letter of the law but not the spirit" dodge, implemented so that the counselor won't have to admit that the couple needs a divorce.

Christianity says that the solution is for Jesus to change the people, which is a great idea. If you could just pray and have God heal people's neuroses and pathologies, we'd be in business. Unfortunately, the exact opposite seems to happen in far too many cases: Christianity discourages people from getting the help they need, especially if that help involves psych meds. Not that you can't use them, just that you're making baby Jesus cry by not having enough faith to pray the crazy away. Go ahead if you have to, we won't judge. You monster.

Morality seems to most often occur when we act against what our natural tendencies push us to do.

This strikes me as a concise, accurate definition of morality. We use our minds to make decisions that go against our instincts. It's a necessity for living in community, which turns out to be an evolutionarily advantageous setup. Tribes and herds are far better off than loners. Loners have to be physically intimidating, nasty critters in order to fend off all the physically intimidating, nasty critters trying to eat them.

The thing is, these moral decisions are not unique to human beings. They can be found in most social animals. Wikipedia has a pretty decent entry under Evolution of morality that's worth a read.

The social insistence that married couples with kids stay together is hardly unique to Christianity. This is common to societies and religions around the world. And of course it made perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint until the invention of the Pill.

In fact, I would argue that the invention of modern medicine very suddenly created a situation in which the old religiously-sanctioned view of reproductive relationships no longer made any sense. First, by reducing infant mortality, we shifted from a world in which having 8 to 12 kids made sense (because so few of them would live to see adulthood) to a world in which the human population is zooming out of control. This is a threat to those religions which insist that we should breed like rabbits.

Then, by giving women control over their reproductive systems, we made it possible for women to have sex just because it feels good, without having to worry about getting pregnant. Women have the freedom to be just as casual about sex as men are, and to reproduce or not reproduce as they choose. This is a threat to those religions which insist that a woman cannot fuck anyone but her husband.

In the past 200 years, we have decoupled prodigious procreation from survival. We don't need to have 8-10 kids in order to continue as a species. In fact, many of us don't need to have any kids at all. But the old religious and social imperatives die hard.

In the past 50 years, we have decoupled reproduction from sex. Sex is no longer a serious survival decision. But the old moral rules still persist, even though they're irrelevant.

Sex decoupled from procreation; procreation decoupled from survival. Sex decoupled from survival. All the sexual morality embedded in us for thousands of generations was designed to reference a situation which no longer exists. It's obsolete.

[Esquilax]

I think there is a difference between what i'd call romantic love and true love. Often people get married because it's what they want for themselves. They see it as something that will make them happy. They really aren't prepared to hang in if the marriage doesn't provide them that happiness.

What purpose should marriage serve, if not the happiness of the participants? You keep talking about the greater morality at play, but did you actually define it? What moral use does marriage have, beyond the relationship that defines it? Don't mention kids, as you don't need to be married to have children, nor are children an expectation of marriage.

They don't see a greater morality in staying in the marriage, even when children are involved. I just think saying that "the children will be better off apart because we fight all the time, is a way of saying "I don't want to sacrifice my own happiness and work to make peace in the household."

That's very kind of you, to tell everyone else what they're thinking when they say certain things. When did you gain your telepathic powers, and have you ever considered using them to fight crime?

Besides, your premise is out of whack, as the parental relationship does not hinge on the romantic one; a good upbringing doesn't rely on the fact that the kid's parents are in love, it relies on them being good parents. Divorced parents are perfectly capable of exactly that, especially if they, say, go about their divorce as mature adults, rather than letting the imperfections in their marriage fester until things end badly.

Do you think it is impossible for a couple to put aside their differences and make a good marriage through love and their own human effort?

In some cases, yes. In others, no. We are all human, some of us do make mistakes that we don't realize until later, and marriage certainly isn't exempt from that. This misty-eyed conception you have of marriage as some eternal, perfect bond is nice and all- hell, I got married a few weeks ago myself, I feel it- but it isn't realistic in a world where people aren't perfect. You can't force yourself to feel an emotion, you can't jam romantic satisfaction into your brain by thinking hard enough; it's very possible to pantomime a happy marriage for everyone's sake, but aside from outward appearances it doesn't address the core issue. Traditional christianity does tend to focus on projecting the perfect outward appearance while systematically devaluing the desires of the individual, but that doesn't mean that love and satisfaction can be forced into being. It just means christianity demands conformity with an ideal, regardless of the personal cost.

I'm speaking generally here. I'm not trying to be "holier than thou" and assume to be able to look into anyone's marriage and judge how they should act. I'm stating how I interpret christian moral principles and how I have applied them to my own marriage.

And I'm still wondering what greater moral purpose marriage serves.

[Nope]

I have never seen anyone 'Love their enemies' before and I doubt that I will end the future. It isn't a moral that I strive toward either because I can't understand how it is a useful or even a positive goal.

Life in general deserves a certain amount of respect; therefore, I don't go around kicking puppies or drowning kittens. Because I am human, I value my own species more than a dog or rat so, of course, I wouldn't torture someone even if they hurt my family. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't do everything in my power to make certain that they didn't go to jail or face consequences for their actions. Just because I wouldn't hurt someone doesn't mean that I love them. In the past, I have had people hurt me and it took some effort to let that pain go. I can't imagine the guilt I would feel if I also had to love them.

Love to me is a powerful word and I think that it demeans the emotions that I do feel for certain people if I give that same love to someone who doesn't deserve it. Yeah, the Christian concept of loving your enemies does seem unique to that religion but I don't see it as something to emulate or to admire.

Even without the religious factor, I do view it as a lack of moral integrity to make a promise and then back out on it; especially if one spouse is against the divorce and the other one forces it , as is often the case.

I think that marriage ceremonies should only stipulate a number of years, maybe seven, instead of until death. No one would have to break their word and the couple could break up without guilt. If a couple, like my husband and I, want to recommit to one another they can do so.



After 26 years of marriage, I still have 'romantic' type love for my husband. There are moments when I get those butterfly in your stomach feelings toward him or he makes my heart beat just a little faster. It would make me very sad if I discovered he was only remaining with me due to our marriage vows and wasn't really happy. I would rather my husband just amicably divorce me than stay because he felt honor bound to do so.