Christian Morality

[RCSaunders]

That doesn't explain why you included people like Finney: would you call him "mainline"?

Usually, "mainline" Protestantism refers to clerical and liturgical things like Anglicanism or Lutheranism, not to conservative evangelicals like Scofield, or people like Moody.

Take a deep breath and I'll try to help you. [If you don't like, "mainline," we don't have to label them at all.] Though I've thoroughly explained it already, I mean all those Christian denominations and teachings that agree on the following doctrines:

The Creation: That God Create and sustains all that exists.
The Creation of man: That God created man without sin and with the law of God written on his very nature and with the free will ability to obey or disobey that law.
The Fall of man: Man chose to disobey the law of God thus corrupting his own nature and that of all future generations are born separated from God, sinners by nature, and condemned.
The Bible: The Bible is the plenary verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts and the sole and prefect revelation of God's truth.
God: There is one true living God who exists in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ: Jesus is the God the son incarnate, a fully human man, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Atonement: Jesus shed blood and death on the cross atoned for all the sins of mankind.
The Resurrection: Jesus rose literally from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Hell: Hell is a literal place of eternal torment where those not saved will spend eternity.
Heaven: Heaven is a literal place of bliss where the saved will spend eternity with God.
Salvation: The only escape from hell and assurance of heaven is salvation by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

On all other doctrinal questions and issues they may and do disagreel on. What makes them Christians are these fundamental doctrines they do agree on. It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.

...those mainstream denominations agree on and their view of morality that is referred to...

Okay, I'll hear that: what do you mean by "mainstream," and what do you mean they "agree" on?

P.S. -- Regarding Aquinas, you're right: you said "Augustine." Memory failed me. My apologies. However, Augustine would not represent all the views of all the other men you listed.

Augustine was certainly not a protestant, either, but all Calvin's Institutes rest heavily on Augustine's teaching and his (Augustine's) doctrinal views would have been those I've listed above.

Morality comes from knowing right from wrong and acting accordingly.

Not sure what your point here is. Is that what you mean by morality? If so, what do you mean by, "right," and, "wrong." Right and wrong for what to whom?

The Bible has doctrines that don't address morality in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

The article is not about morality, itself. It is only about morality as taught and believed by those forms of Christianity delineated above. I agree that attempting to explain morality in terms of the Bible, however, is hopelessly muddled.

[Immanuel Can]

It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.

Well, you've told me some points in their theology.

But you want to talk about their "morality," you say. What "morality" do they share, in your opinion?

Christian Morality

Oh: you just recycled me back to your former errors, which I already dealt with.

As I said, you got the theology wrong there. That's not what Christianity teaches. I explained why, in the very next response down.

So no, that's not "Christian morality" at all.

[RCSaunders]

It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.

Well, you've told me some points in their theology.

But you want to talk about their "morality," you say. What "morality" Do they share, in your opinion?

Christian Morality

Oh: you just recycled me back ...

I write an article called, "Christian Morality," to describe the morality most Christians embrace. IC comes along and asks, "what morality to they share?" If he had read the article he would know.

If IC doesn't agree with description he could provide his own description or explanation of what Christian morality is, but he won't ever do that. He insists there is no other morality but will not describe what he believes morality actually is. When asked and given the opportunity to say what morality is, he refused to, here, here, and here, but his only answer was, "Later. ... Later means, not yet," which, of course means never, because the promise of later never comes.

Apparently, for Christians, it is perfectly moral to promise to do something which one has no intention at all of doing. That pretty much verifies all I described about the total uselessness of Christian morality.

[jayjacobus]

Take a deep breath and I'll try to help you. [If you don't like, "mainline," we don't have to label them at all.] Though I've thoroughly explained it already, I mean all those Christian denominations and teachings that agree on the following doctrines:

The Creation: That God Create and sustains all that exists.
The Creation of man: That God created man without sin and with the law of God written on his very nature and with the free will ability to obey or disobey that law.
The Fall of man: Man chose to disobey the law of God thus corrupting his own nature and that of all future generations are born separated from God, sinners by nature, and condemned.
The Bible: The Bible is the plenary verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts and the sole and prefect revelation of God's truth.
God: There is one true living God who exists in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ: Jesus is the God the son incarnate, a fully human man, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Atonement: Jesus shed blood and death on the cross atoned for all the sins of mankind.
The Resurrection: Jesus rose literally from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Hell: Hell is a literal place of eternal torment where those not saved will spend eternity.
Heaven: Heaven is a literal place of bliss where the saved will spend eternity with God.
Salvation: The only escape from hell and assurance of heaven is salvation by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

On all other doctrinal questions and issues they may and do disagreel on. What makes them Christians are these fundamental doctrines they do agree on. It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.


Okay, I'll hear that: what do you mean by "mainstream," and what do you mean they "agree" on?

Augustine was certainly not a protestant, either, but all Calvin's Institutes rest heavily on Augustine's teaching and his (Augustine's) doctrinal views would have been those I've listed above.

Morality comes from knowing right from wrong and acting accordingly.

Not sure what your point here is. Is that what you mean by morality? If so, what do you mean by, "right," and, "wrong." Right and wrong for what to whom?

The Bible has doctrines that don't address morality in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

The article is not about morality, itself. It is only about morality as taught and believed by those forms of Christianity delineated above. I agree that attempting to explain morality in terms of the Bible, however, is hopelessly muddled.

Perhaps people should think for themselves.

[RCSaunders]

Morality comes from knowing right from wrong and acting accordingly.

Not sure what your point here is. Is that what you mean by morality? If so, what do you mean by, "right," and, "wrong." Right and wrong for what to whom?

The Bible has doctrines that don't address morality in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

The article is not about morality, itself. It is only about morality as taught and believed by those forms of Christianity delineated above. I agree that attempting to explain morality in terms of the Bible, however, is hopelessly muddled.

Perhaps people should think for themselves.

Exactly! But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

[jayjacobus]

Not sure what your point here is. Is that what you mean by morality? If so, what do you mean by, "right," and, "wrong." Right and wrong for what to whom?

The article is not about morality, itself. It is only about morality as taught and believed by those forms of Christianity delineated above. I agree that attempting to explain morality in terms of the Bible, however, is hopelessly muddled.

Perhaps people should think for themselves.

Exactly! But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

It will happen when religions teach it.

[Immanuel Can]

It is morality as understood and described by those views I refer to.

Christian Morality

Oh: you just recycled me back ...

I write an article called, "Christian Morality," to describe the morality most Christians embrace...

...but get it wrong.

If IC doesn't agree with description he could provide his own description or explanation of what Christian morality is...

This thread was started by you, with you airing what you thought "Christian morality" must be. You came somewhat close, but missed on several points. I corrected your errors. My goal was a kind one: to help you also to adjust your claims about what Christian morality is, so as to get them correct. So I didn't shut you down or accuse you of anything, but just pointed out the differences between your view and the truth.

If you want to know what Christian morality is, you can now correct your assumptions.

Was there something more you wanted? If you did, you didn't ask for it. And if you don't want to fix the faults in your original account, I don't know what more to tell you.

[RCSaunders]

Oh: you just recycled me back ...

I write an article called, "Christian Morality," to describe the morality most Christians embrace...

...but get it wrong.

If IC doesn't agree with description he could provide his own description or explanation of what Christian morality is...

This thread was started by you, with you airing what you thought "Christian morality" must be. You came somewhat close, but missed on several points. I corrected your errors. My goal was a kind one: to help you also to adjust your claims about what Christian morality is, so as to get them correct. So I didn't shut you down or accuse you of anything, but just pointed out the differences between your view and the truth.

If you want to know what Christian morality is, you can now correct your assumptions.

Was there something more you wanted? If you did, you didn't ask for it. And if you don't want to fix the faults in your original account, I don't know what more to tell you.

Then don't!

[Immanuel Can]

I write an article called, "Christian Morality," to describe the morality most Christians embrace...

...but get it wrong.

If IC doesn't agree with description he could provide his own description or explanation of what Christian morality is...

This thread was started by you, with you airing what you thought "Christian morality" must be. You came somewhat close, but missed on several points. I corrected your errors. My goal was a kind one: to help you also to adjust your claims about what Christian morality is, so as to get them correct. So I didn't shut you down or accuse you of anything, but just pointed out the differences between your view and the truth.

If you want to know what Christian morality is, you can now correct your assumptions.

Was there something more you wanted? If you did, you didn't ask for it. And if you don't want to fix the faults in your original account, I don't know what more to tell you.

Then don't!

Okay.

But your original view of "Christian morality" will still be wrong...even if I'm not around to correct it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality according to most religious teaching (Christian Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptist, and most other Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and related denominations, as well as most other religions, including Islam, hold that the source of all morality is God, that moral right and wrong are dictated by God and that without God, there cannot be any moral values.

It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here. This is neither a criticism or evaluation of Christian morality, however. It makes no judgment concerning either the validity (is it true?) or value (what good is it?). This is partly because the Christian view of morality actually denies that morals pertain to any earthly or human objectives or purposes. The remainder of this article describes that Christian view.

I am not a Christian but from an analytical perspective, I have to agree the Christianity Model of Morality is the most efficient for humanity at this present [not for the future] conditional phase of human evolution.

The Christianity Model of Morality is OPTIMALLY efficient because, constitutionally and practically it works to a great degree in deterring the majority of Christians from committing terrible evil and violence.

If the ideal Moral Model is 100/100, I would rate the Christian Morality Model at 20/100. Even at such low rating it is optimal for the majority 80% of the 8 billion human in relation to their present psychological state.

There are various morality model which could be rated at 50/100 but they are not suited the majority of 8 billion people. Thus if 10% of people were to adopt it, it would have insignificant impact to humanity.

The Christian Morality Model at least has a semblance of a morality model but it is rated at 20/100 because it is based on the threat of God, i.e. if you don't comply you will go hell and be burnt eternally.
What is critical is the Christian Morality is centered on an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. 'love all, even enemies' i.e. if all Christians were to comply voluntarily or under threat, the result will be no evil and violence.

In contrast, Islam also has its Morality Model but there is no overriding pacifist maxim to threaten believers not to commit evil. Rather the Islamic Model commands believers to commit evil.

I would rate the secular models of morality, e.g. Utilitarianism, consequences, free-for-all sort of morality lower than the Christian Moral Model. This is because these secular models are too fluid which can go either way re good or evil.

The Christian Moral Model is very straightforward in principle, "Do good or else, go to hell!" The ultimate purpose of the Christian Moral Model leave no room for evil at all.
Note if Christians were to commit evil acts, that has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Therefore the Christianity Model of Morality is the most efficient for humanity at this present [not for the future] conditional phase of human evolution.

Since the Christianity Model of Morality is rated only at 20/100, what humanity need is to establish morality models that are greater say at >50/100 to 80/100 without the limitations of the Christian model.
I am confident it can be done given that ALL humans are programmed with an inherent moral potential which is gradually unfolding at present, so it is a matter of expediting what we already have at a greater pace towards the near future.

[RCSaunders]

Morality according to most religious teaching (Christian Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptist, and most other Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and related denominations, as well as most other religions, including Islam, hold that the source of all morality is God, that moral right and wrong are dictated by God and that without God, there cannot be any moral values.

It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here. This is neither a criticism or evaluation of Christian morality, however. It makes no judgment concerning either the validity (is it true?) or value (what good is it?). This is partly because the Christian view of morality actually denies that morals pertain to any earthly or human objectives or purposes. The remainder of this article describes that Christian view.

I am not a Christian but from an analytical perspective, I have to agree the Christianity Model of Morality is the most efficient ...

I suppose if you love war and oppression you would think the Christian religion was, "efficient," second only to Islam in that regard. Christians love militarism and glorify war and picture all of life as a war between God's people and all others which it regards as enemies. Why do you think two favorite Christian hymns are, "Onward Christian Soldiers," and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". With exception of a tiny minority (Quakers [Friends], Amish, and Mennenites, for example) Christian, "morality," promotes and glorifies war.

[DPMartin]

Morality according to most religious teaching (Christian Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptist, and most other Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and related denominations, as well as most other religions, including Islam, hold that the source of all morality is God, that moral right and wrong are dictated by God and that without God, there cannot be any moral values.

It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here. This is neither a criticism or evaluation of Christian morality, however. It makes no judgment concerning either the validity (is it true?) or value (what good is it?). This is partly because the Christian view of morality actually denies that morals pertain to any earthly or human objectives or purposes. The remainder of this article describes that Christian view.

Everything is derived from the existence of God and determined by that God. Everything that exists is made by God, controlled by God, and belongs to God. All purpose and meaning only exist relative to God. Good is whatever God says is good, and the purpose of all things is whatever God declares their purpose to be.

Apart from God, nothing has any purpose or meaning. The universe God created, separate from God's control, would be nothing but meaningless random events with no possible purpose or meaning. Even life, consciousness, and human beings would be mere accidents.

Human beings are not accidents, however, but the intentional creation of God and their only purpose is whatever purpose God has created them for, and God has given them a specific nature to make it possible for them to fulfill that purpose. The nature is called variously, "the ability to obey or disobey," or, "free will." It is that concept that is the whole basis of the Christian view of morality. It means one is morally responsible for what they do because the can and do choose what they do.

Morality, is determined by God's purpose for human beings. Being moral means being what God determines a human being is supposed to be, doing what God says is right for them to do and not doing what God says it is wrong for them to do. What God says humans must or must not do is referred to as, "the law of God," and the whole purpose of a human being's life can be reduced to, "obeying God's law."

But there is a caveat. While human beings can choose to obey God's law and be moral, it is certain they won't.

[I'm sorry I cannot explain it any better than that. Christians insist that human beings have what they call, "free will," meaning they are responsible for what they do because they choose what they do, but also claim that it is impossible for a human being to live without disobeying God's law, which disobedience is called sin. In other words, one is only guilty of sin because they choose to sin, and it is not possible that they will not choose to sin. There is no contradiction in this according to the Christian view, however.]

The whole purpose of the law of God is to reveal how a human being must live and what they must and must not do to be what God chooses for them to be. It has no other purpose. It is not for any practical human benefit in this world. In this world, being obedient to God's law is just as likely to ruin one's life as to not. Obeying God's law very possibly will get one imprisoned, martyred, tortured, or killed or require one to live in poverty or sacrificing their life to endless Christian causes.

Obeying God's law does not, in fact, result in any benefit to human beings. That's not its purpose. Some mistakenly believe that obeying God's law has the benefit of escaping what is called the judgment of God, but Christian morality is clear, no one can escape the judgement of God, i.e. be saved, by obeying God's law. It is not possible for a human being to obey God's law. Everyone is immoral, no matter what they do and everyone will be judged and is doomed to eternal suffering and torment. It cannot be escaped.

Whatever you think of Christian morality, it is of no use to achieving anything, in this world or any other. It's only practical purpose is as an explanation by God for subjecting all human beings to eternal torment and suffering and calling it justice.

[Christian teaching does say some will escape judgement, but that teaching has nothing to do with morality. It is, in fact, a defiance of morality as obedience to law conferring virtue on those who are immoral without any reference to the law or obedience. It's called redemption, which is not addressed here.]

where is the subject of "morality" in here?

anyway as usually you say your educated on Christianity but you don't get it.

one, all are born into sin (not just disobedience but separation from God) you've heard of it "original sin". in other words your are condemned to death already. note all have died so far and there's only one who it has been claimed to have return from the grave of His own power and He is declared sinless before God before and after the Cross.

also "freewill" is a Greek philosophy that the RCC toke in like most other pagan or none Christian beliefs in the roman empire, and converted it to Catholicism. they were and technically still are a church of the state, and it was part of their commission seeing that the roman emperor was the vicar of the church then, that they should convert the empire. they couldn't covert the people but they could either out law another religion or covert its beliefs to Catholicism. such is the case with freewill and its stuck to the Christian mind set since. freewill is hog wash in the case of the God of Israel, no one chose God in the bible, all were chosen by Lord their God.

also, even in the Tora, forgiveness is written in the law, because the Creator and Judge knows man's nature cannot fulfill God's nature in the flesh.
Adam was to be son of God, instead Adam followed words other than the Word of God and in God's Judgement He let them be in the flesh (dust to dust) because they died of the Life God gave them before they ate of the tree.

technically a Christian is one who is called and chosen therefore born of the will of the Spirit,(born again) and by prosses in the Christian's experience with knowing God the Nature of God begins to prevail and the nature of man (really just animal nature) has less and less effect in ones thinking and doing.


man is and occupies God's place in the earth that God gave man and the indwelling of that Life that is God's belongs in man therefore the property of God to execute God's Judgements in the earth (by the way God's Judgement is Life of which Jesus Christ executed in the flesh)

so, if the one you entrusted your creation of life and creatures has told you to piss off, where would the standing of that person and all that is his be with you?

[RCSaunders]

where is the subject of "morality" in here?

You're kidding. Quoted from the article:

Morality according to most religious teaching ...
be any moral values ...
Protestant view of morality ...
Christian morality, however ...
Christian view of morality ...
denies that morals ...
It means one is morally responsible ...
Being moral means ...
Christian morality is clear, ...
Everyone is immoral ...
Christian morality ...

Do you have a reading comprehenstion problem?

anyway as usually you say your educated on Christianity but you don't get it.

one, all are born into sin ...

Read a little bit of this thread. There is not one thing you've said I have not already addressed. See my post to Immanuel Can. And see a little of my history before you say any more foolish things about what others know.

The subject is not freewill, not the history of Christianity, not about anything but morality as taught in all those versions of protestant Christianity identified. Almost everything you wrote is irrelevant.

I don't care that you wrote it. If it's what you are interested, fine, but it has nothing to do with my article.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality according to most religious teaching (Christian Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptist, and most other Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and related denominations, as well as most other religions, including Islam, hold that the source of all morality is God, that moral right and wrong are dictated by God and that without God, there cannot be any moral values.

It is only the mainstream Protestant view of morality that will be examined here. This is neither a criticism or evaluation of Christian morality, however. It makes no judgment concerning either the validity (is it true?) or value (what good is it?). This is partly because the Christian view of morality actually denies that morals pertain to any earthly or human objectives or purposes. The remainder of this article describes that Christian view.

I am not a Christian but from an analytical perspective, I have to agree the Christianity Model of Morality is the most efficient ...

I suppose if you love war and oppression you would think the Christian religion was, "efficient," second only to Islam in that regard. Christians love militarism and glorify war and picture all of life as a war between God's people and all others which it regards as enemies. Why do you think two favorite Christian hymns are, "Onward Christian Soldiers," and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". With exception of a tiny minority (Quakers [Friends], Amish, and Mennenites, for example) Christian, "morality," promotes and glorifies war.

Again you are showing you don't have the competency to be analytical, philosophical and analytical.

Noted your CV re theology,
viewtopic.php?p=567506#p567506
but that is only scratching the surface without diving deep into the principles of humanity and religions.

All recognized religions are conditioned by their 'constitution' supposedly delivered from their God via the latest messengers or prophet.

In the case of Christianity, only the words of Jesus Christ as in the Gospels is the constitution of Christianity and nothing else. The Acts and Epistles are merely appendixes and guides.

Now show me where in the Gospels did God via Jesus Christ permit any Christian to override the overriding command/maxim to 'love all, even enemies'.
Note overriding means 'overriding' all other minor elements in the Gospels.
Did God abrogate this maxim?

The point is when one is a Christian it is implied that Christian has entered into a covenant [divine contract] with God/Jesus to comply exactly with the terms of the covenant contract] that are stipulated in the Gospels and no where else.

The fact that SOME Christians acted otherwise [be violent and kill others] against the overriding maxim of 'love all, even enemies' has nothing to do with the constitution of Christianity.
Which ever onward Christian Soldier or any Christian who has committed evil and violence against humanity, he had not complied with the overriding terms of the covenant, i.e. "to love all, even enemies". As such they have sinned within the omnipresent God.

There is no room for a Christian to decide what he can do or not do re violence and other 'negative' acts. Only God can decide what is final. However there may be situations where the Christian, in his view, has to fight but must recognize he has sinned.

Whilst they have sinned, their God has allowance to forgive them if the reason in committing violence is for the greater good of humanity or their religion. Since their God is omnipotent and omnipresent, their God will exercise reasonable discretion if the sin can be forgivable.
The point here, the Christians who had gone against God's command, they had sinned [there is no escape on this] then it is up to God to judge their acts whether it is forgivable or not.

That is why I have argued the Christian Morality Model is effective albeit crude which is based on the threat of hell.
As such, doctrinally any Christian who even want to defend their religion [or oneself, kins, etc.] must think 10 times before they act against the overriding maxim of 'love all, even enemies' then acknowledged they have sinned and hope for the best that god will forgive them for their sins.

In contrast, in Islam, Muslims who obeyed Allah to commit evil and violence as stipulated in the Quran are given "high-fives" by their God and will be highly rewarded as promised with bonus of virgins where necessary. There is no question of sinning and asking for forgiveness in this case.

I predict you will blabber away as usual because you don't have the competency to argue and justify rationally and philosophically.

[Peter Holmes]

No fact does or can entail a moral conclusion. So even if the Abrahamic god exists, and even if it has a certain nature, and even if we know its nature and what it wants, that still wouldn't mean there are moral facts. Even divine might doesn't make right. Christain moral objectivism is as baseless as any other variant of the delusion.