Board index ‹ Morality

[Heathen Man]

Christians essentially have ONE moral: Faith in God. If this is true, then they should not claim to have a robust moral system for THIS WORLD.

I wish I could think of a better title. Of course the Christian moral system takes place in this world, but it is ultimately concerned with the next world.

In the debate surrounding what we should rally around to save the west, it is commonly put forth that Christianity is the best way, and one of the major reasons is that it has a strong moral system that can be used to fight degeneracy.

But when I look at Christianity, I see a religion of sacrifice in deference to God, and spreading that message to new people.

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

1-4 are clearly about establishing that their God is the true god and worshiping him will be occupying at least 40% of your moral system.

6-10 are fine enough, but hardly robust. You could read into them greatly, but they aren't brain surgery, just some basic guidelines for an orderly society. I'll admit, even that is somewhat biased toward the west, but enough to save it? I'm not sure, because these 6 are almost perfectly reflected in our modern laws, which don't seem to be helping.

OK, now let's look at Jesus whose teachings are the basis of Christianity.

https://relevantmagazine.com/current16/heres-what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-sell-everything-and-give-it-poor/

He clarified that we should focus all our earthly energies into helping the poor and spreading the word. All other questions can be addressed by one filter: deference to and faith in God.

• Where will you live: Trust in God. You need no material comfort.
• How will I eat: Trust in God. This why we have charity.
• If I'm in bad health: Trust in God. If you die, you will go to heaven.
• If I am stolen from: Trust in God. They will be judged in the end.
• If my neighborhood is flooded with non-Christans: Trust in God. Keep spreading the word.
• If the West falls into a sea of degeneracy, and the Christian faith is forgotten due to sheer numbers of animalistic peoples out-propagating the keepers of the faith: TRUST IN GOD. What happens in this world is not in your hands, but God's. Just make sure YOU are right with him, and the rest will happen according to his plan. Even if that plan of course includes the total cleansing of the earth again.

This can go on forever. There is no imperative for preservation of self or civilization. There is only pure deference to God.

This is seems to me an extremely weak position to attack the things going on in this world, because ultimately, a Christian isn't supposed to worry about that. I submit that any reading beyond that basic tenet is ex post facto and not required by the religion.

(Sorry to only submit one source to teachings. I was raised Catholic and do have some inherent knowledge, although far from perfect.)

[jimwalton]

Your original premise is a misunderstanding, so the whole case sort-a doesn't make sense. At the end you conclude it's an extremely weak position, and you're right, but that's because you've started with a mistake and drilled it into a false hole. So let's talk, and between a few back-and-forths, maybe we can straighten some things out.

> Christians essentially have ONE moral: Faith in God

This is not true. I believe there's a God because of the logical and scientific evidence. Faith is, then, making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to show that the conclusion is reasonable. Since I have been convinced that God exists, I then posit God as the source of morality—His nature shows us what is good and right.

Therefore, I have a whole moral system based in an objective sense of what is good and right. This system includes such things as the value of human life, respect for other people, compassion for other people, doing practical things to help other people, living in peaceful community with other people, justice, fairness, honesty, and a hundred other things.

> But when I look at Christianity, I see a religion of sacrifice in deference to God, and spreading that message to new people.

What Christianity is is a relationship with the living God founded on forgiveness of sins and freedom from them. That forgiveness puts me in right relationship to God, which is what I was made for. That's the message I want everyone to know.

Then you refer to the 10 Commandments. Though our culture treats them as a summary of the biblical law and the most important part of it, that is never what they were or were meant to be. Even "commandments" is misleading—the Bible never calls them that. Instead, they are called the "Ten Words." They do not and cannot stand as the summary of the law or be singled out as more important than the rest. They function the way the rest of the Torah function: a list of illustrations that give information about legal wisdom.

The Ten Words focus on helping Israel construct an identity as God's people and how God expects the covenant people to function in relationship to Him and each other. They are not intended to establish or reflect an ideal society or to give us a basis for morality.

> 1-4 are clearly about establishing that their God is the true god and worshiping him will be occupying at least 40% of your moral system.

So 1-4 are not about a moral system at all. They show how God's people are to relate to Him as their suzerain and their covenant God. They are to recognize His dignity, His authority over them, and their commitment to Him. It's not about morals.

> 6-10 are fine enough, but hardly robust. You could read into them greatly, but they aren't brain surgery, just some basic guidelines for an orderly society.

6-10 are examples of how God's covenant people are to treat each other: preserve each other's dignity, take your commitments to each other seriously, and understand the rights and privileges of everyone as just as important as your rights and privileges. They're not so much about morality as they are about community.

> He clarified that we should focus all our earthly energies into helping the poor and spreading the word.

I see the article, but it's a bit limiting. Jesus said far more than this that is about morality. Jesus most certainly spoke about caring for the poor, and also healing the sick, visiting those in prison, telling the truth, treating each other with dignity, not harming other people and dozens more.

> Where will you live: Trust in God. You need no material comfort.

No. God blesses us with places to live and we are to be good caretakers of what God gives us to be responsible with.

> How will I eat: Trust in God. This why we have charity.

No. We should be diligent and responsible enough to work for what we get. We work for our food.

> If I'm in bad health: Trust in God. If you die, you will go to heaven.

No. We have every responsibility to use medical knowledge and technology to help ourselves. There is nothing wrong with doctors or medicine in our quest for health.

> If I am stolen from: Trust in God. They will be judged in the end.

No. The government is ordained to reward good and punish the bad. There is nothing wrong with pursue legal means to deal with crime.

> If my neighborhood is flooded with non-Christans: Trust in God. Keep spreading the word.

Christianity is such good news we'd be remiss to keep it to ourselves. It's like one beggar telling another where to find bread. We are not to hide the truth or be ashamed of it.

> If the West falls into a sea of degeneracy, and the Christian faith is forgotten due to sheer numbers of animalistic peoples out-propagating the keepers of the faith: TRUST IN GOD.

No. We are to work for justice and truth.

> What happens in this world is not in your hands, but God's.

What happens in this world is in Satan's hands, our hands, and God's hands. We're all at work as agents of influence. Some people are working for good, some for evil. We work to feed the hungry, reduce disease, fair governments, distribution of wealth, educated people, and to influence the world for knowledge, justice, health, environmental responsibility, fiscal responsibility, righteousness, and peace.

> Just make sure YOU are right with him, and the rest will happen according to his plan.

No. We are to work to make the world a better place.

> There is no imperative for preservation of self or civilization. There is only pure deference to God

This is just incorrect. There is plenty of imperative for self and civilization. Your Catholic education left you with an inadequate understanding of the teachings of Christianity and what the Bible actually says.

Let's talk some more.

[Robbie 1]

> Scientific evidence for god.

Can you point to the repeatable experiment that provides measurements and data to prove the existence of god?

[jimwalton]

Of course not; that's foolish. Science is mostly (though not exclusively) deductive methodology, and God is not detectable by deductive methods, and for good reasons:

1. God is not at our command to perform at our will and our timing.
2. It is impossible to set up control groups to monitor and measure God's actions.
3. Some of what God does uses natural means, so there's no way to prove the causal source.
4. Some of what God does has no visible effect, such as when He gives peace, courage, or a thought.

In reality science at times taps into all forms of reasoning: deductive, inductive, and abductive. The scientific evidence for God is in the inductive and abductive categories.

Just for the record, nor can one set up repeatable experiments to provide measurements and data to prove what the stock market will do tomorrow, who will win the 2020 Super Bowl, or who will win the 2020 presidential election. You can't set up repeatable experiments to prove someone's guilt or innocence in courts (though science does have some elements to contribute to those decisions). For that matter, they can't even use repeatable experiments to prove the existence of dark matter, so...we all understand the limitations of science to its rightful arena.

[Fan 101]

> Your Catholic education left you with an inadequate understanding of the teachings of Christianity and what the Bible actually says.

I won't deny this. Would you say Catholics in general have this deficiency? Because that would bolster my own case a little, being that it's Catholics rallying Westerners under their banner to win the ideological war.

I also noticed a strong denial of the self-sacrifice imperative in your words here. Is that another trapping of Catholicism and not reflective of maybe true Christianity?

I like that you dare to list virtues in your post. Most are terrified to do it. So thanks. I want to gather up the ones you list here:

• value of human life,
• respect
• compassion
• help other people (practically)
• honesty,
• caring for the poor,
• visiting those in prison,
• telling the truth,
• treating each other with dignity, not harming other people
• feed the hungry,
• reduce disease, health, healing the sick,
• distribution of wealth, fiscal responsibility,
• knowledge, educated people,
• justice, fairness, fair governments,
• environmental responsibility,
• peace, living in peaceful community with other people
• influence the world, make the world a better place.
• imperative for self and civilization.

OK, I can't say that's not plentiful. It's actually quite complex. I wonder what the limits of these imperatives are. I suppose that is handled on a case-by-case basis through church leadership?

>> Where will you live: Trust in God. You need no material comfort.
> No. God blesses us with places to live and we are to be good caretakers of what God gives us to be responsible with.

Serious question, would a mansion count?

>> How will I eat: Trust in God. This why we have charity.
> No. We should be diligent and responsible enough to work for what we get. We work for our food.

When we give to the poor, does it come with the stipulation that they should start working hard to avoid needing more handouts?

>> If I'm in bad health: Trust in God. If you die, you will go to heaven.
> No. We have every responsibility to use medical knowledge and technology to help ourselves. There is nothing wrong with doctors or medicine in our quest for health.

I just had no idea the bible taught this, I mean beyond taking care of yourself as best you can.

Does the bible say we should extend life as long as possible by for example replacing failing organs in old age?

>> If I am stolen from: Trust in God. They will be judged in the end.
> No. The government is ordained to reward good and punish the bad. There is nothing wrong with pursue legal means to deal with crime.

What if the goverment becomes totally corrupt, does the bible implore us to make revolution and install a new one?

>> If the West falls into a sea of degeneracy, and the Christian faith is forgotten due to sheer numbers of animalistic peoples out-propagating the keepers of the faith: TRUST IN GOD.
> No. We are to work for justice and truth.

Now, you've avoided my question. If the faith itself is about to be forgotten in the world due to worldly sinners exercising power, how do you ensure the entire religion isn't extinguished?

P.S. - the 10 commandments part I will put to the side for the moment

[jimwalton]

> Would you say Catholics in general have this deficiency?

That's a good question, but I'm not able to answer it. I'm not sure generalizing is a good idea, anyway.

> I also noticed a strong denial of the self-sacrifice imperative in your words here. Is that another trapping of Catholicism and not reflective of maybe true Christianity?

There is certainly an aspect of sacrifice that is fitting to Christianity. Love itself is an act of sacrifice, and Jesus called us to deny ourselves and follow him. I got the idea in the original post that the writer was saying sacrifice was pretty much the whole thing, which I disagree with.

> I wonder what the limits of these imperatives are. I suppose that is handled on a case-by-case basis through church leadership?

Almost all the imperatives have conditions or explanations. We are to feed the hungry and help the poor, but we will never eradicate poverty. We are to tell the truth, but sometimes wisdom teaches us to hold our tongues. Etc.

> Serious question, would a mansion count?

By the standards of most of the world, all Americans live in mansions.

The Bible has no qualms with wealth, per se. Wealth is not a sin. The Bible asks three main questions about money: (1) How did you get it? (legally and justly or exploitatively?); (2) What are you doing with it? (indulging in luxuries or helping the needy?); (3) What is it doing to you?

As Slash (of G&R fame) said, "Money will trash you out." Money can mess you up, but money can also be used to great effect. R.G. LeTourneau, a Christian businessman, gave 90% of his money away during his lifetime. He used it to build schools, fund projects for the poor, etc.

By contrast, I read of a movie producer (I can't remember his name right now) who became a Christian, gave all his money away, and went to work in a soup kitchen.

Both are good examples. Le Tourneau kept earning money and he was a very wealthy man, but he used it for good. Lot's of good causes would have gone undone without him. The movie producer was very noble and did a good thing also.

The Bible doesn't tell us that one of those is right and one is wrong. We each do what God has given us to do.

> When we give to the poor, does it come with the stipulation that they should start working hard to avoid needing more handouts?

Some people are not capable of that and should be on permanent subsistence. The Bible gives an example of widows in 1 Tim. 5.3-8. Others, however, should learn to work (Eph. 4.28; 1 Thes. 4.11; Acts 20.35; and esp. 2. Thes. 3.10).

> Does the bible say we should extend life as long as possible by for example replacing failing organs in old age?

The Bible doesn't say anything about this subject, mostly because it is a modern capability (and we are still on a learning curve of how to do it well in some cases). Instead we are to use wisdom to make good decisions. We have to weigh risk, cost, and benefit. In cases like this, each case has to be taken on its own merit or folly.

> What if the goverment becomes totally corrupt, does the bible implore us to make revolution and install a new one?

The Bible never talks about revolution, but it does say that the purpose of government is to enforce the good and restrain evil. Because of that teaching, some Christians infer that revolt is allowable when the government is no longer doing what it was ordained to do. My personal position, I happen to believe in the legitimacy of revolution for just cause.

> Now, you've avoided my question. If the faith itself is about to be forgotten in the world due to worldly sinners exercising power, how do you ensure the entire religion isn't extinguished?

I wasn't trying to avoid your question, but to speak instead to the issue of morality, since that was the subject of the post. To address your question directly, the Bible tells us that there will never come a time when real and true faith is forgotten. The Bible prophesies that atheism will increase and that lots of Christians will be so much like the world that you won't be able to tell the difference (and they will provide fuel for denigrating real Christians), but that there will always be true Christians.

We ensure that some will always be faithful by teaching the truth, sharing our good news in appropriate ways, and living the way Christians are supposed to live.

[Robbie 1]

So your claiming you have scientific evidence for god but when asked for it , you list the things you don’t have and then point out the limitations of science .

Not very convincing.

[jimwalton]

> So your claiming you have scientific evidence for god but when asked for it , you list the things you don’t have and then point out the limitations of science .

No, that's not what I'm claiming. What I'm claiming is that you can't do experiments on God or to find God. You can't demand, "OK, God, we have all our equipment lined up, our technology is a go, and we have people here, so, now, perform! Now, right now. Do what our experiment demands of you."

Here's what I'm claiming: You can't do that. You can do that to test gravity, motion, force, velocity, biological growth, and the things of the natural world appropriate to scientific inquiry. But God isn't your circus monkey to perform on demand.

[Robbie 1]

Your words

“I believe in god because of the logic and scientific evidence”

My question, what’s your scientific evidence?

You answer

“ what I’m claiming is you can’t...”

And

“We all understand the limitations of science “

So far your good at listing things you can’t prove scientifically. I’m pretty good at that too. Everyone is.

Your also good at saying science is limited, umm yep, no argument there.

But I wasn’t asking what you can’t prove or what are the limits of science.

I asked , directly from your question, for your scientific evidence.

[jimwalton]

Sure. No problem.

First of all, causality. Science says that nothing can self-generate out of nothing. If you have nothing, you get nothing. And yet the universe exists. That begs a reasonable explanation.

Science tells us that before the Big Bang, the universe was a dimensionless singularity where none of the physical forces and laws were at work.

And so science insists that whatever caused the Bang to go bang was a powerful, timeless force outside of nature. Science points us to a causal mechanism outside of itself. Scientific naturalism is inadequate to explain the beginning of the universe; theism fulfills the principle of sufficient explanation.

Secondly, teleology. The universe has many attributes that are extremely (unreasonably) tuned for life. If these universal constants were even slightly different than they are, life would not exist. Science shows us that the universe is this way but points us elsewhere for why it is this way. When we observe the way the universe is and its finely-adjusted and tuned balance, science leads us to an explanation outside of time + chance.

Third, the complexity of what we see in nature (and what science observes) is not totally explainable by science. The more we know about the cell, for instance, the more it begs an explanation for its fantastic complexity, efficiency, and operational origins. Again, while science can give a partial explanation, theism can give a complete explanation.

Science has told us amazing things about the natural world, pointing beyond scientific explanations. If we follow Occam's Razor and pursue the simplest and most logical explanation, theism is more concordant with science than naturalism is.