Challenge regarding Christian morality

[Creed of Heresy]

[Drich]

Theirs the whole greatest commands bit that we do..

you mean the part where you travel around the world, forcing your beliefs on the locals and attempting to erase their cultural heritage?

No

---

It's the love God with all your being thing and love your neighbor as yourself.

If you have the first in proper focus the second will take on a more in depth meaning than if you were to try this with out God.

[robvalue]

I appreciate your discussion Lek, and I believe you are giving your honest interpretation.

But the more you write, the more it seems to me that the christian "morality" you speak of is actually harmful. It puts the abstract notion of the marriage above the happiness of the participants. It puts them both at fault, even if it's a mutually accepted amicable divorce. This is all to do, I think, with what some unseen being thinks about marriage rather than the welfare of the actual people involved. And placing the unseen being's opinion first is a dangerous thing. I would say it is blatantly immoral to pretend everything is fine and drag out a miserable marriage, lying to the other person, just to keep the marriage going.

Also, jesus, as usual, contradicts himself. He says none of the old law is to be changed. Not one word. So eye for an eye still stands, even if he also tries to imply that it doesn't. We have a contradiction upon a contradictions. So again the reader is left to just pick their way out of each dilemma to match their preconceptions. Clearly people can and do take both interpretations. If they are "wrong" then God is a terrible author and doesn't care enough to come sort this stuff out.

---

Love your neighbour is the most blatantly obvious bit of morality. There are very few people who are unaware of this instinctive behaviour, and we call those people sociopaths. So God decided to infuse most people with it even if they never hear about Christianity, while making others utterly incapable of understanding it except in pragmatic terms.

Again, the fact that people don't always follow their own morality is not evidence that it doesn't exist. People can choose to override it. And there is certainly no evidence that christians are more moral either.

[downbeatplumb]

Actually, western world secular morality is based on christian morality.

No it isn't.

Christian morality is based on humanism and mixed with a dash of intolerance.

[Creed of Heresy]

Actually, western world secular morality is based on christian morality.

Uhm. No. No, it is not. What have you been smoking to get that idea?

The most platitudish moral concepts that Christians trumpet are generally all stolen and bastardized from previously-existing systems of law.

Now, if you mean western-world popular morality is based on it, then, yes. You need only look at America for that shit. The rampant censoring of and frowning upon sexuality and nudity while trivializing violence, the constant pushing of individual or group worldviews onto other individuals or groups, regardless the others' opinions or own views, the casual flippancy regarding war and veneration of military virtues over all other virtues, including those of charity, labor, and education...

America is a very Christian society. Note how it's also the most stagnant and regressive society in the western hemisphere. This is not a coincidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you believe that integrity is an out-dated concept?

If I did, I'd probably be bullshitting right now about the differences between secular morality and "christian morality" in a desperate attempt to make my particular group seem somehow more "moral" by the default of the other on some non-specific legal contract.......................seems to me, that this is a question you should be asking yourself, firstly.

Just food for thought.

[Davka]

Depends on what you promise. What if you make a stupid promise to the wrong person, or an ill-informed promise? Or a promise that's impossible to keep? Like most things, it's not black-and-white.

As for violating a legal contract, well, that's just silly. It's not a violation or an abrogation, it's a nullification. Both parties agree to bring the contractual relationship to a close. What's immoral about that?

In the situation I presented, the husband did not agree to the divorce. He wanted to stay together.

But that alone is not enough information. We need to hear the wife's side of things. Is the husband abusive, either physically or emotionally? Is he actually present in the relationship, or does he simply want his wife because she fills a need?

And why would he want to keep the marriage together if she does not? There is clearly a huge disconnect involved. One partner wanting to keep a marriage together while the other wants to break it up is an indication of deep, deep interpersonal problems.

If one partner in a legal contract acts in bad faith regarding the implied terms of that contract, it is not immoral for the other partner to take legal steps to nullify the contract.

Yes, marriage has been around for a long time; and only recently has it become a government- controlled contract.

Also only recently has it been strictly between one man and one woman. Only recently have the religious authorities pretended to have some say as to whether or not two people are "married." Only recently has a religion-sanctified ceremony been required by religious leaders.

For most of recorded history, marriage was quite different from what it is today in the west. But then, the same can be said for almost all aspects of life. The history of social contracts is barely relevant to the state of those same contracts today.

---

you mean the part where you travel around the world, forcing your beliefs on the locals and attempting to erase their cultural heritage?

No

---

It's the love God with all your being thing and love your neighbor as yourself.

If you have the first in proper focus the second will take on a more in depth meaning than if you were to try this with out God.

I hear lots of noise about this, but I don't see it in practice.

In practice I see Christians trying to force their religious opinions (via legislation) on their neighbor, without any regard to what their neighbor actually wants or needs.

Here's a better life verse: Do Justice, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly with your "God."

[Drich]

Davka,

So... In your Honest opinion, this is the some total of Christian involvement in soceity, that is not mirrored in the Godless 'morality' soceity practices on it's own?

I can think of 1/2 a dozen different laws that permit actions the bible forbids..

[Nope]

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.

People think that the bible teaches "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but here are the actual verses:

Matthew 5:38-39New King James Version (NKJV)
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

The bible verses go even farther in describing how Chrisitans are supposed to act in the face of abuse

. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

You quote a series of bible verse that I NEVER see Christians following. Take into consideration that I am in the southeastern USA so I have come in contact with a lot of Christians. To their credit, some of my friends have taken seriously the commandment to forgive and make very gallant efforts to not remain angry at past cruelties or to be polite in the face of negativity. I admire them for that but to actively seek out ways to help their enemies, I don't see Christians doing that.

There are Christians who will protest abortion clinics, same sex marriage or get very angry over the use of the wrong phrase for their holidays.If they tried to convince the government to also apply Jesus' words to 9-11, I guess we would have sent food and clothing to the Taliban and not responded with violence to terrorism.

---

Well, most do not divorce until and unless it's actually necessary (for well-being of the people in the relationship), and I have not seen any christian morality (morals that only christians follow) that has benefits that does not closely match secular morality.

A christian acquaintance of mine married a woman, who also claimed to be a christian, in a christian marriage ceremony. They promised each other in the sight of God to remain faithful "till death do us part". After a few years of marriage she cheated on him a number of times. Being a committed christian, he remained with her and hoped to somehow reconcile the relationship. As far as I know, he treated her with love and respect. She eventually filed for divorce and won even though he was opposed. Obviously, she was unhappy with the marriage relationship and decided to get out of it. Assuming that he did actually treat her well, was she morally justified in what she did?

I think that he was being a dick and not showing true love. If you love someone, you wish them to be happy even if it makes you miserable. Letting someone go just because it makes them happy is the ultimate sign of love.

Obviously she did not love him. I don't see how it is respectful of the other person to remain in a marriage out of duty instead of out of love. Perhaps the other person could meet someone that valued them as they deserved.

[dyresand]

Davka,

So... In your Honest opinion, this is the some total of Christian involvement in soceity, that is not mirrored in the Godless 'morality' soceity practices on it's own?

I can think of 1/2 a dozen different laws that permit actions the bible forbids..

Dirch except Christians really do not "love" like they are supposed to.
If your gay their response your going to hell. If you are smart oh your just letting the devil into your brain you got be like us and close minded no thank you i like modern everything. Not the same skin color.. i don't need to talk about this i mean watch fox or something or hell look at Paula Deen yeah she lost career on food network because of it. If you follow another religion or god or god(s) Christians are the first ones to say your gods do not exist and ours is real so stop it and be like us(not even kidding on this one i have friends who are Hindu and well people get on their case about not believing in the right god i was in a class with them when a ignorant woman said your worshiping false idols needless to say she gotten a warning.) i think that's the important stuff..