Philosophy Now Forum

I am not a Christian but from an analytical perspective, given the present psychological states of the majority of humans, 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.

Since the Christianity Model of Morality is rated only at 20/100, what humanity need is to establish morality models and systems 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.

But given the present psychological states of the majority of humans, 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.

What about ????
the Crusades,
"Onward, Christian Soldiers"
"Christians" [George Bush, etc.] killing people all over the world,
God's Army in Myanmar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_A ... ary_group)
Christian Terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

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. God's Army 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.

Christianity per se and its Moral System is inherently pacifistic.

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 truths 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.

Views?
From Christians?

I believe most Christians will not agree with the above.
What they merely rely upon is blind faith that every thing is perfect with their God that soothe them with consonance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:02 amIn 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've been increasingly interested in this claim lately, I've seen it a few places. Can you cite any sources for that? Point me to specific verses in the Quran?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 7:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:02 amIn 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've been increasingly interested in this claim lately, I've seen it a few places. Can you cite any sources for that? Point me to specific verses in the Quran?

There are about 300+ verses directing violence against non-believers which can easily be referenced from the internet, but more often most missed out,

this critical verse;

Quran 5:33: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

The verse 5:33 may not be impactful if one read in English but it has great significance in Arabic which the believers are more attuned to.

The "corruption" in "strive after corruption in the land" in Arabic is "fasādan" فَسَادًا.
This is where the term "fasādan" فَسَادًا encompasses the widest types of threats from non-believers which include 'disbelieving the religion' and other very minor acts that threaten the religion, e.g. even drawing of cartoons.

Thus upon the slightest threat to the religion, believers are sanctioned by their God to kill, crucify or cut off their hands and feet of non-believers.

I cannot see how any one can counter the above which is literally what their God command them to do upon such slightest threat to the religion.

Most times I see claims like these discussed, the rebuttle is usually that the violence is always contextually defensive. Eg in 5.33 it's a punishment for people who *make war*, which doesn't necessarily imply to me a desire to be violent towards any random nonbeliever.

Does the context add any clarity on what 'make war' means there?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 8:01 am Most times I see claims like these discussed, the rebuttle is usually that the violence is always contextually defensive. Eg in 5.33 it's a punishment for people who *make war*, which doesn't necessarily imply to me a desire to be violent towards any random nonbeliever.

Does the context add any clarity on what 'make war' means there?

That is the problem with translation where the original context, mode, tone and mood are not taken into account. "Make war" is not to be taken literally.
Actually when reading the Quran in its translation one must trace EVERY significant word to its roots in the various Arabic Dictionaries, not focusing on the modern dictionaries but with reference to the time the Quran was written.

The word yuḥāribūna يُحَارِبُونَ has its roots in;

• War/battle/conflict. To spoil one’s goods, plunder/despoil, ask a thing importunately. Become angry/mad. Excite or provoke or stir up war.

Surely no one is going to physical war with Allah?
As such the verse cover the range from serious wars to provocations or any acts that threaten the religion of Allah. [context]

The critical_ness of this is the verse is expounded in the widest and loosest context/view in the various hadiths and reputable scholars who have great influence on the masses.

If ONLY 20% of all 1.5 billion Muslims are inclined to the above, we have a pool of 300 million of them with the impulse to be duty bound to obey the above command. The consequences of their compliance to 5:33 is so glaringly evident.
With the sanction in 5:33 those evil prone Muslims will act out their evil acts on non-believers without guilt and they are confident they will be rewarded many folds in paradise [as promised in various verses].

In contrast, Christianity has the overriding 'love all, even enemies' Period! with no room for any believer to exercise any violent acts from any command of God.
If any Christian were to act violently, that is their personal act and thus has to face the omnipresent and omniscient God on judgment day who will judge accordingly.