Christian Morality

[Sculptor]

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.

Have you ever asked yourself why you chose to be a p**** and insult people rather than properly address their points?

[Immanuel Can]

No fact does or can entail a moral conclusion.

That is true, so far. No mere fact can entail a moral precept.

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.

Actually, it would.

Not that it would have to have been like that...if it were some random type of "Supreme Being," it could have created something for no reason at all, with no purpose and to no ends. And it might have no particular view of what should happen therein. It's an odd "god," to be sure; but theoretically, such a thing might be possible...who can say?

So simple fact of the existence of a god might not require that there is morality. So far, fair enough.

But "Abrahamic," you say? Well, then it's the God that creates purposefully, and expresses His moral intentions through revelation. So now you've got quite a different equation. That God has constituted the universe with purposes, intentions, moral significance and teleological direction, so says Torah, and so Abraham believed, as a result. And you say it's the "Abrahamic" God, not just any conception of Supreme Being.

So now there's morality, and it's objective.

[DPMartin]

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. and what i have to say is much more important, riiight?

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.

but your article isn't interesting, its not worth the time it takes to read it. and what i have to say is much more important, riight?

[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. and what i have to say is much more important, riiight?

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.

but your article isn't interesting, its not worth the time it takes to read it. and what i have to say is much more important, riight?

Of course. This is a free market of ideas. You only buy what is of value to you. As I mentioned to IC, I only write, "for those who might be interested (and it's unlikely there will be many)," because I'm not interested to changing anyone else's mind or winning any stupid debates. So it's a good thing you found out you aren't interested before you wasted any more of your time.

[DPMartin]

You're kidding. Quoted from the article:



Do you have a reading comprehenstion problem?



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.

but your article isn't interesting, its not worth the time it takes to read it. and what i have to say is much more important, riight?

Of course. This is a free market of ideas. You only buy what is of value to you. As I mentioned to IC, I only write, "for those who might be interested (and it's unlikely there will be many)," because I'm not interested to changing anyone else's mind or winning any stupid debates. So it's a good thing you found out you aren't interested before you wasted any more of your time.

why of course RCSaunders, according to you its all about you what you think ought to be, correct? all should meet the RCSaunders expectations of the world around RCSaunders. because RCSaunders is in the right, just ask RCSaunders if RCSaunders is in the right, moral high ground if you're not sure.


WOW

[Peter Holmes]

No fact does or can entail a moral conclusion.

That is true, so far. No mere fact can entail a moral precept.

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.

Actually, it would.

Not that it would have to have been like that...if it were some random type of "Supreme Being," it could have created something for no reason at all, with no purpose and to no ends. And it might have no particular view of what should happen therein. It's an odd "god," to be sure; but theoretically, such a thing might be possible...who can say?

So simple fact of the existence of a god might not require that there is morality. So far, fair enough.

But "Abrahamic," you say? Well, then it's the God that creates purposefully, and expresses His moral intentions through revelation. So now you've got quite a different equation. That God has constituted the universe with purposes, intentions, moral significance and teleological direction, so says Torah, and so Abraham believed, as a result. And you say it's the "Abrahamic" God, not just any conception of Supreme Being.

So now there's morality, and it's objective.

Not so. Patent and demonstrable nonsense. The claim 'X says this is morally right/wrong, therefore X is morally right/wrong' has no place in a rational moral discussion. We'd laugh it out of court. Whether X created and designed everything for a purpose would make absolutely no difference. And to think it would make a difference would indicate a denial of moral responsibility. The immorality of theism, in a nutshell.

[RCSaunders]

but your article isn't interesting, its not worth the time it takes to read it. and what i have to say is much more important, riight?

Of course. This is a free market of ideas. You only buy what is of value to you. As I mentioned to IC, I only write, "for those who might be interested (and it's unlikely there will be many)," because I'm not interested to changing anyone else's mind or winning any stupid debates. So it's a good thing you found out you aren't interested before you wasted any more of your time.

why of course RCSaunders, according to you its all about you what you think ought to be, correct? all should meet the RCSaunders expectations of the world around RCSaunders. because RCSaunders is in the right, just ask RCSaunders if RCSaunders is in the right, moral high ground if you're not sure.


WOW

Thanks for your comment.

[Immanuel Can]

No fact does or can entail a moral conclusion.

That is true, so far. No mere fact can entail a moral precept.

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.

Actually, it would.

Not that it would have to have been like that...if it were some random type of "Supreme Being," it could have created something for no reason at all, with no purpose and to no ends. And it might have no particular view of what should happen therein. It's an odd "god," to be sure; but theoretically, such a thing might be possible...who can say?

So simple fact of the existence of a god might not require that there is morality. So far, fair enough.

But "Abrahamic," you say? Well, then it's the God that creates purposefully, and expresses His moral intentions through revelation. So now you've got quite a different equation. That God has constituted the universe with purposes, intentions, moral significance and teleological direction, so says Torah, and so Abraham believed, as a result. And you say it's the "Abrahamic" God, not just any conception of Supreme Being.

So now there's morality, and it's objective.

Not so. Patent and demonstrable nonsense. The claim 'X says this is morally right/wrong, therefore X is morally right/wrong' has no place in a rational moral discussion.

It depends who's speaking. If it's just an ordinary person, right you are.

But if it's God, things are quite different. For the One who made the universe is perfectly capable of saying, and qualified to say, for what purposes He made it, what His Creation aims at, what it was created for, and what actions and attitudes are harmonious with His purposes.

In fact, nobody else really is.

We'd laugh it out of court.

Then it would be a miscarriage of justice, and we'd be proved fools. For we would then have access to the One who could actually speak authoritatively on the answer, and we'd have simply refused to listen at all.

Think about it this way.

Suppose you walk by somebody's house, and he has a huge structure on his front lawn...maybe with some beams and gears and other workings in it, but with no function you can instantly see. Who would be the person who could speak authoritatively as to why that strange structure is there?

There can be only one answer: whoever put it there. He alone can tell you why he did it. Moreover, if the strange structure actually has a function, only he can tell you what it is. And when it functions, the only person who can tell you whether it functioned rightly or wrongly is also the creator of it.

Without him, you and I are just guessing. And if the structure simply fell there by accident, we cannot even ask the question why it's there. There can be no reason.

The strange structure is the universe. If nobody put it there, it can have no function, and can't misfunction. It cannot achieve its end (telos), or fail to achieve its end, because it was not created for an end. So there is no objective morality in such a universe. It's not even possible for there to be.

But if the universe has a Creator, then He is perfectly able to say what the universe exists for, what its end (telos) is, and whether or not the things within it are functioning toward that end. He can judge its functioning perfectly, as nobody else is even capable to do.

So the question is ultimately not "Is there such a thing as objective morality," but rather, "Does the Creator exist?" The answer to that second question determines the possibility of a positive answer to the first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No fact does or can entail a moral conclusion.

You are too hasty in the above. You are claiming 'fact' above as something absolute.
There is no absolute fact by itself existing unconditionally.

In general,
no fact [unqualified, specific] does or can entail a specific conclusion.
Whatever the fact, it is must be conditioned or qualified to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
E.g. scientific facts are always conditioned upon the scientific FSK, legal facts upon the legal FSK, and so on.
So moral facts can contribute to an objective moral conclusion via a moral FSK.

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.

Thus Christian moral facts and its objectivity are conditioned upon the Christian Moral FSK which is grounded upon the Gospels of Jesus Christ.
The problem is the credibility of objectivity of Christian moral truths are not credible in contrast to that of scientific truth from the scientific FSK.

Whilst Christian moral objectivism is not credible it is nonetheless the MOST effective "optimal" moral model for the majority in their present state at this current evolutionary phase. [note 'optimal' i.e. the best given the current limited conditions]. It is not likely to be optimal in the future due to various changes.

The Christian moral objectivism [adopted by 2 billion] is not baseless [has its own FSK which not credible] and not useless say in contrast to that of the Islamic moral model [adopted by 1.5 billion].

I believe the Buddhist-proper Moral Model is of higher quality than the Christian Moral Model but the problem is the majority of people do not have the proper psychological state at present to maximize its potential yet.

Can you show me one effective Moral Model/System and has more believers that is better than the Christian Moral Model [adopted by 2 billion] at PRESENT [not future]?

For the future we will have to establish objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK while developing and expediting the inherent moral potential of humanity to enable them to adapt and apply the more advance moral systems.

[Iwannaplato]

And to think it would make a difference would indicate a denial of moral responsibility. The immorality of theism, in a nutshell.

It seems like you are saying 'If there is a morality, it SHOULD have the following characteristics:...............' Doesn't that include a claim to objective morality?

[Peter Holmes]

That is true, so far. No mere fact can entail a moral precept.


Actually, it would.

Not that it would have to have been like that...if it were some random type of "Supreme Being," it could have created something for no reason at all, with no purpose and to no ends. And it might have no particular view of what should happen therein. It's an odd "god," to be sure; but theoretically, such a thing might be possible...who can say?

So simple fact of the existence of a god might not require that there is morality. So far, fair enough.

But "Abrahamic," you say? Well, then it's the God that creates purposefully, and expresses His moral intentions through revelation. So now you've got quite a different equation. That God has constituted the universe with purposes, intentions, moral significance and teleological direction, so says Torah, and so Abraham believed, as a result. And you say it's the "Abrahamic" God, not just any conception of Supreme Being.

So now there's morality, and it's objective.

Not so. Patent and demonstrable nonsense. The claim 'X says this is morally right/wrong, therefore X is morally right/wrong' has no place in a rational moral discussion.

It depends who's speaking. If it's just an ordinary person, right you are.

But if it's God, things are quite different. For the One who made the universe is perfectly capable of saying, and qualified to say, for what purposes He made it, what His Creation aims at, what it was created for, and what actions and attitudes are harmonious with His purposes.

In fact, nobody else really is.

We'd laugh it out of court.

Then it would be a miscarriage of justice, and we'd be proved fools. For we would then have access to the One who could actually speak authoritatively on the answer, and we'd have simply refused to listen at all.

Think about it this way.

Suppose you walk by somebody's house, and he has a huge structure on his front lawn...maybe with some beams and gears and other workings in it, but with no function you can instantly see. Who would be the person who could speak authoritatively as to why that strange structure is there?

There can be only one answer: whoever put it there. He alone can tell you why he did it. Moreover, if the strange structure actually has a function, only he can tell you what it is. And when it functions, the only person who can tell you whether it functioned rightly or wrongly is also the creator of it.

Without him, you and I are just guessing. And if the structure simply fell there by accident, we cannot even ask the question why it's there. There can be no reason.

The strange structure is the universe. If nobody put it there, it can have no function, and can't misfunction. It cannot achieve its end (telos), or fail to achieve its end, because it was not created for an end. So there is no objective morality in such a universe. It's not even possible for there to be.

But if the universe has a Creator, then He is perfectly able to say what the universe exists for, what its end (telos) is, and whether or not the things within it are functioning toward that end. He can judge its functioning perfectly, as nobody else is even capable to do.

So the question is ultimately not "Is there such a thing as objective morality," but rather, "Does the Creator exist?" The answer to that second question determines the possibility of a positive answer to the first.

Here's your argument:

This god created the universe and human beings for a purpose; therefore, acting to fulfil/thwart its purpose is morally right/wrong.

This doesn't follow. And describing the god's commands, nature or purposes as morally good/right doesn't fix the problem. That merely pushes the question back: there are moral facts because ... there are moral facts.

Theistic moral objectivism collapses in a question-begging mess. And the absence of evidence for the foundational claim - this god, uniquely among the thousands invented by our ancestors, exists and we know what it wants - means that, as a candidate theory of morality, it doesn't even make it to the starting post anyway.

[Age]

Not so. Patent and demonstrable nonsense. The claim 'X says this is morally right/wrong, therefore X is morally right/wrong' has no place in a rational moral discussion.

It depends who's speaking. If it's just an ordinary person, right you are.

But if it's God, things are quite different. For the One who made the universe is perfectly capable of saying, and qualified to say, for what purposes He made it, what His Creation aims at, what it was created for, and what actions and attitudes are harmonious with His purposes.

In fact, nobody else really is.

We'd laugh it out of court.

Then it would be a miscarriage of justice, and we'd be proved fools. For we would then have access to the One who could actually speak authoritatively on the answer, and we'd have simply refused to listen at all.

Think about it this way.

Suppose you walk by somebody's house, and he has a huge structure on his front lawn...maybe with some beams and gears and other workings in it, but with no function you can instantly see. Who would be the person who could speak authoritatively as to why that strange structure is there?

There can be only one answer: whoever put it there. He alone can tell you why he did it. Moreover, if the strange structure actually has a function, only he can tell you what it is. And when it functions, the only person who can tell you whether it functioned rightly or wrongly is also the creator of it.

Without him, you and I are just guessing. And if the structure simply fell there by accident, we cannot even ask the question why it's there. There can be no reason.

The strange structure is the universe. If nobody put it there, it can have no function, and can't misfunction. It cannot achieve its end (telos), or fail to achieve its end, because it was not created for an end. So there is no objective morality in such a universe. It's not even possible for there to be.

But if the universe has a Creator, then He is perfectly able to say what the universe exists for, what its end (telos) is, and whether or not the things within it are functioning toward that end. He can judge its functioning perfectly, as nobody else is even capable to do.

So the question is ultimately not "Is there such a thing as objective morality," but rather, "Does the Creator exist?" The answer to that second question determines the possibility of a positive answer to the first.

Here's your argument:

This god created the universe and human beings for a purpose; therefore, acting to fulfil/thwart its purpose is morally right/wrong.

This doesn't follow. And describing the god's commands, nature or purposes as morally good/right doesn't fix the problem. That merely pushes the question back: there are moral facts because ... there are moral facts.

Theistic moral objectivism collapses in a question-begging mess. And the absence of evidence for the foundational claim - this god, uniquely among the thousands invented by our ancestors, exists and we know what it wants - means that, as a candidate theory of morality, it doesn't even make it to the starting post anyway.

'Moral facts' EXIST if one chooses to define the words 'moral' AND 'facts' in ways, which ARE POSSIBLE TO EXIST.

However, one could ALSO simply choose to define the words 'moral' AND 'facts' in ways, which would make them together IMPOSSIBLE TO EXIST.

So, CLAIMING 'moral facts' DO or DO NOT EXIST is just SOLELY dependent upon how one CHOOSES to define words.

But, we have gone through this enough times already that this would ALREADY BE KNOWN and WELL UNDERSTOOD, by now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not so. Patent and demonstrable nonsense. The claim 'X says this is morally right/wrong, therefore X is morally right/wrong' has no place in a rational moral discussion.

It depends who's speaking. If it's just an ordinary person, right you are.

But if it's God, things are quite different. For the One who made the universe is perfectly capable of saying, and qualified to say, for what purposes He made it, what His Creation aims at, what it was created for, and what actions and attitudes are harmonious with His purposes.

In fact, nobody else really is.

We'd laugh it out of court.

Then it would be a miscarriage of justice, and we'd be proved fools. For we would then have access to the One who could actually speak authoritatively on the answer, and we'd have simply refused to listen at all.

Think about it this way.

Suppose you walk by somebody's house, and he has a huge structure on his front lawn...maybe with some beams and gears and other workings in it, but with no function you can instantly see. Who would be the person who could speak authoritatively as to why that strange structure is there?

There can be only one answer: whoever put it there. He alone can tell you why he did it. Moreover, if the strange structure actually has a function, only he can tell you what it is. And when it functions, the only person who can tell you whether it functioned rightly or wrongly is also the creator of it.

Without him, you and I are just guessing. And if the structure simply fell there by accident, we cannot even ask the question why it's there. There can be no reason.

The strange structure is the universe. If nobody put it there, it can have no function, and can't misfunction. It cannot achieve its end (telos), or fail to achieve its end, because it was not created for an end. So there is no objective morality in such a universe. It's not even possible for there to be.

But if the universe has a Creator, then He is perfectly able to say what the universe exists for, what its end (telos) is, and whether or not the things within it are functioning toward that end. He can judge its functioning perfectly, as nobody else is even capable to do.

So the question is ultimately not "Is there such a thing as objective morality," but rather, "Does the Creator exist?" The answer to that second question determines the possibility of a positive answer to the first.

Here's your argument:

This god created the universe and human beings for a purpose; therefore, acting to fulfil/thwart its purpose is morally right/wrong.

This doesn't follow. And describing the god's commands, nature or purposes as morally good/right doesn't fix the problem. That merely pushes the question back: there are moral facts because ... there are moral facts.

Theistic moral objectivism collapses in a question-begging mess. And the absence of evidence for the foundational claim - this god, uniquely among the thousands invented by our ancestors, exists and we know what it wants - means that, as a candidate theory of morality, it doesn't even make it to the starting post anyway.

There are moral facts conditioned upon the specific moral system.

Regardless of your denial, the bottom line is whether the moral facts as claimed with a moral system works or not in the practical world.

So far the Christian Moral Model has worked OPTIMALLY within the inevitable constraints faced by the majority of human AT PRESENT and will continue to do so until its cons outweigh its pros which is expected to be soon.

Pari Passu given everything equal, if we convert every Muslim to be Christian the positive change in term of morality will be evident.

The 41,216 fatal violent acts [see https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/] driven by the Islamic Constitution would not have happened.

[Peter Holmes]

And to think it would make a difference would indicate a denial of moral responsibility. The immorality of theism, in a nutshell.

It seems like you are saying 'If there is a morality, it SHOULD have the following characteristics:...............' Doesn't that include a claim to objective morality?

No, it doesn't. There is absolutely no logical contradiction between the following two claims:

1 There are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

2 People should take responsibility for their own moral opinions, and shouldn't contract them out to others, real or fictional (such as gods).

[Iwannaplato]

2 People should take responsibility for their own moral opinions, and shouldn't contract them out to others, real or fictional (such as gods).

Why shouldn't one do that? Is there another way you can word that so it doesn't seem like you are making a claim to moral objectivity? Is it bad to do it or do mean that it isn't moral behavior anymore it is something else?
Also you labelled it immorality
immorality noun: the state or quality of being immoral; wickedness.
I could see...confused or impractical as labels one is left with, for examples, without an objective morality, but not immoral and things one should do unless should is meant in the, if you want A you should do X, advice kind of way.

Or, to put this another way, when you say....

2 People should take responsibility for their own moral opinions, and shouldn't contract them out to others, real or fictional (such as gods).

you mean that's what you want people to do.