Christian morality

[khalou]

In America, whenever anyone uses the phrase "Christian Morality", just about everyone nods their heads and understands what is meant by that. Years ago, I started to wonder about the phrase. I know for a fact that many Christians wouldn't want to be associated with what sometimes pass as Christian morals by some groups, and that the best defense of true Christians against these pretenders might be what is found in the Word.

What, exactly, are "Christian morals"? What is meant by the phrase "Christian Morality"?

I embarked on a long quest into the question that took me to many sites, and through many long conversations with Christians. At first, there were lots of responses like "what do you mean? The ten commandments are the foundation of Christian morality". But, as we delved into situational applications, the ten commandments turned into more specific scriptural direction and interpretation, as would be expected. "Thou shall not murder" except when this and this happens. "Thou shall not steal" unless this and this happens.

All are followed by "Because Jesus said, ".........

It all came down to "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Ah. That struck a chord in me because I have long understood that Love Thy Neighbor is perhaps the best way to approach morality. Since becoming an atheist, I have not left that wisdom behind.

Let me take a moment to explain this very incredible sidebar to my post on overall morality--

Who loves a vicious murderer but his mother, or wife, or child? Why do they do so? Why does the vicious murderer hold that his own life is precious? Is it because he loves himself? Is it because he knows himself so well that he knows exactly why he saw his options, and took the one that led to the vicious murder of another?

Who looks at all of their options, and decides that the evil one is the "best thing to do", because no one chooses the "second best" or especially not the "worst thing to do"? Bank robbers decide that it would be the "best thing to do" to rob a bank.

Let me ask you all a question that you really need to think about. This is the essence of understanding the "love your enemy as yourself" verse.

What would have had to happen to you, a sinner just like all the others of whom none are righteous, no, not one, of whom you are not to judge lest ye be judged, of whom you are to cast the first stone if you are without sin yourself, to look at your options (as anyone would do) and choose an evil one as being the "best thing to do" (as anyone would do)?

We are all born as babies with the same minds that babies have. Our experiences will influence our choices and NO ONE seeks to be evil. It is our experience that leads us to our conclusions about the "best thing to do".

I can love Hitler, because I know that there, but for the grace of God, go I. Justice is a completely different matter than love or hate. If someone behaves in a way that is hurtful to society, then they must be punished. Think about Jeffry Dahlmer, who killed and ate people and ask yourself the question of "What would have had to happen to me (whether clinical or experience induced) to seek such horrific acts?

Anything less would be judgment that transcends what is written in the Word. "That person wasn't like me- they were evil" isn't going to cut it. To me, that person has experienced something horrible that would have placed me in their shoes had it happened to me. If I don't believe that, then I must believe that I am somehow superior to that person.

What came out of my thoughts on that was the fact that Christians derive morality in the same way that I do- according to their experience and reason. According to Christianity, it is immoral to hate Hitler or Dahlmer because it places one as being "better" than them. Jesus was quite clear that no one individual is capable of judging their neighbor. That is not justice because justice is served by governing bodies that need to provide order to societies. But there is no hatred or personal judgment in the law, only consequences for actions that injure others.

Here, at last, is the definition of Christian Morality that I found that meets the criteria.

First, the criteria-

It must transcend human judgment, because human judgment is based on a human interpretation of what "I would never do", which is subject to experience and so many variables that it couldn't be of a God. Human interpretation of the Word falls all over the map, and just about anything can be justified by human interpretation of the Word.

Now, the definition- (and I think you guys will like this)

Christian morality is impossible to legislate because if it ever were, last one in jail, lock the door. Christian morality is of God, and no one, no, not one, qualifies any better than anyone else. The Blood of the Lamb squares believers with their sins through salvation, but in no way makes them "moral" according to the standards of God. There was only one person, according to Christianity, that was moral, and only one.

If I drive into a town and ask for a beer, and the people who live there say "We ain't got none of that, we have Christian morals", I drive on, and wonder which version.

k

[Guest yod]

morality is a societal norm that is defined by the culture.

We aren't called to "morality" but righteousness; and there is one standard for that.

[khalou]

morality is a societal norm that is defined by the culture.

We aren't called to "morality" but righteousness; and there is one standard for that.

I assume you mean the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice?

k

[secondeve]

Khalou:

Thank you for posting such a well-written and thought-out topic! Definitely something to think about for all concerned.

Do you believe it is possible for someone to be born with more of an inclination towards a certain behaviour than somebody else? Personally, I believe that we are, each of us, a combination of innate nature as well as nurturing. Not every child is born the same. Take two babies born of completely different parents and raise them in exactly the same environment, and even before they are old enough to be actively influenced or shaped by experiences, they will still behave differently. Imagine two small children sitting in a park. One, for no apparent reason, picks up a stone and drops it again; the other plucks some grass and throws it away. We see this kind of behaviour all the time, but why, at an age before we are conscious of our thoughts or the idea of motivation, do we choose to perform some simple acts, but not others? Why do different actions occur to us to peform, and others do not? If we were all born and wired the same way, so that every person started out at birth exactly the same as everyone else, I don't see how one might account for twins, for example, hours old and with thus far identical experiences, moving different limbs or looking in different directions, sleeping or crying alternately. Each of us has a different internal nature - which, as you say, is influenced by different experiences in life. It might be possible to argue that experience can affect our personality even before we are conscious of our environment, or that, using the twins example, through such a slight alternation as being laid in a different crib we are given different motivations, but that isn't my belief. The point I am getting at is, we are not all the same, and while some people are certainly driven to extremes by circumstances, I wonder whether or not there are some people incapable, under any circumstances, of a particular act, whether some people could be capable only under very rigid circumstances, or if some might be capable in less specific conditions or after a different provocation. To use a slightly facetious example, musical talent can be innate, so why not a predisposition to violence or cheerfulness?

Edited October 4, 2006 by secondeve

[Floatingaxe]

morality is a societal norm that is defined by the culture.

We aren't called to "morality" but righteousness; and there is one standard for that.

Amen! We are called to righteousness and out of obedience to Jesus Christ, we act. The Holy Spirit is our guide, and He is in unity with the Father, so we must be in unity as well, ultimately, without working at it. It is when humanity interferes and allows its own mindset and selfish interpretations to interfere that we have variations in "morality". Righteousness as found in Jesus Christ is our standard.

[Guest yod]

morality is a societal norm that is defined by the culture.

We aren't called to "morality" but righteousness; and there is one standard for that.

I assume you mean the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice?

k

actually I mean the Word;

Torah in the Spirit

[khalou]

Khalou:

Thank you for posting such a well-written and thought-out topic! Definitely something to think about for all concerned.

Do you believe it is possible for someone to be born with more of an inclination towards a certain behavior than somebody else? Personally, I believe that we are, each of us, a combination of innate nature as well as nurturing. Not every child is born the same. Take two babies born of completely different parents and raise them in exactly the same environment, and even before they are old enough to be actively influenced or shaped by experiences, they will still behave differently. Imagine two small children sitting in a park. One, for no apparent reason, picks up a stone and drops it again; the other plucks some grass and throws it away. We see this kind of behavior all the time, but why, at an age before we are conscious of our thoughts or the idea of motivation, do we choose to perform some simple acts, but not others? Why do different actions occur to us to perform, and others do not? If we were all born and wired the same way, so that every person started out at birth exactly the same as everyone else, I don't see how one might account for twins, for example, hours old and with thus far identical experiences, moving different limbs or looking in different directions, sleeping or crying alternately. Each of us has a different internal nature - which, as you say, is influenced by different experiences in life. It might be possible to argue that experience can affect our personality even before we are conscious of our environment, or that, using the twins example, through such a slight alternation as being laid in a different crib we are given different motivations, but that isn't my belief. The point I am getting at is, we are not all the same, and while some people are certainly driven to extremes by circumstances, I wonder whether or not there are some people incapable, under any circumstances, of a particular act, whether some people could be capable only under very rigid circumstances, or if some might be capable in less specific conditions or after a different provocation. To use a slightly facetious example, musical talent can be innate, so why not a predisposition to violence or cheerfulness?

It's interesting that you would choose musical talent for your example. I mean REALLY interesting. You couldn't have picked a better example, for example.

I'm cursed with the ability to play just about any musical instrument known to man instinctively it seems. But I don't see it that way. I've had arguments with people about this. They claim that I am somehow born with this talent, and I claim that it all depends on how you look at music. I argue that if I tell you to put your finger here, then you should be able to. What's so hard about that?

I get absolutely overwhelmed with arguments that it isn't that simple.

I still don't understand, nor can I defend, my position adequately. But I assure you that it is my belief that music isn't the mystery that most people make it. Everyone I've taught has picked it up easily because of how I explain it. So it isn't necessarily music that's the talent, but the ability to ignore the "fear" of the mystery of music that's been built up that is the key. "Oh, I could never do that" is a ridiculous thing to say. Why not? You have fingers and a mind, don't you?

Well that's a debate I don't believe I'd ever win. Believe me, I've tried.

So you have a point. Some people have talents that others don't from birth it seems. I suppose a propensity to commit certain crimes could be viable at birth in certain people.

But if that's so, then is it their fault? Did they really decide to be "bad"? And even if they were born this way, don't you suppose that unconditional love might have had an influence?

I'm thinking that if the whole of humanity ever decided to adopt Christianity as the truth in its form that agrees to unconditionally love and teach these God-given differences as simply within the parameters of normal human experience- without personal judgment, without condemnation of an individual who was simply born that way (if they were), then there would be less experience that reinforces evil behavior through judgment or prejudice- or worse- negative treatment by fellow humans.

I'm thinking that Jesus' words were transcendental to anything that man has ever come up with as far as how we treat each other, and that they would easily provide an atmosphere of acceptance of fellow sinners who just need to be understood and loved. If you love your enemy, but do not accept them, then you don't love them, do you?

Love the sinner, not the sin? Who among us is qualified to do such a thing? Do I love you? What of your sin? Do I make a public spectacle of your sin? Or do I ignore it, as I would have my own sin ignored within the arena of love? Who is qualified to point to the sin of the tax collector? Is God? Did He do that? Did He even mention it? Or did He win over a soul by loving the sinner, and completely ignoring the sin?

What did that lesson teach the tax collector, who was HATED? Did the unconditional love of the Son of God teach him to love others, and not be so hateful? Did he quit his job? Or did me merely execute his job in a way that transcended the very human tit for tat way that he had formerly addressed his duties? Did he love his enemies and treat them more fairly?

I don't know, but it's worth a thought.

And those who saw Jesus enter the house of that tax collector were probably absolutely beside themselves. That guy is evil. He does horrible things to people. If someone even whispers that he is a fat, pompous jerk, he raises their taxes. How can this Jesus person not see what the rest of us know? Jesus should join the crowd, shouldn't He?

But Jesus' message was that everyone that sins needs love, and He was willing to give it as an example of what we are to do. The addition of hatred will only make the sinner more sinful, and who are we to know who is not worthy of love? And who are we to say which are just plain evil, and not salvageable? And what about "love your enemy" is so difficult to understand?

The key word here is, as always transcendental. It is a magic of sorts, because it transcends human interpretation of man's wisdom. If it doesn't, then it is not of a real God.

I'm a supervisor of many people. I believe that there is no such thing as a non-motivatable employee. In my years of doing this job, I have never been proved wrong. No matter who I'm given to supervise, no matter what their personal issues, they all not only produce very well, but they all like their jobs. Other supervisors have "problem employees" that they want to fire. I say "give them to me, and I'll show you something about human motivation". I learned this through Christianity. I only wish more Christians would take heed to the transcendental wisdom of their religion.

k (went a little nuts there, didn't I? )

k

[secondeve]

morality is a societal norm that is defined by the culture.

We aren't called to "morality" but righteousness; and there is one standard for that.

Amen! We are called to righteousness and out of obedience to Jesus Christ, we act. The Holy Spirit is our guide, and He is in unity with the Father, so we must be in unity as well, ultimately, without working at it. It is when humanity interferes and allows its own mindset and selfish interpretations to interfere that we have variations in "morality". Righteousness as found in Jesus Christ is our standard.

Not that I've never asked this before, but as the Holy Spirit is an internal guide to righteousness, and because human thoughts, wants and wishes are also internal, how do Christians differentiate guidance by the Holy Spirit from something they feel strongly about, if the issue in question doesn't contradict Biblical morality? How can one claim to know for certain that they are hearing the Holy Spirit, and not something of their own desires which only feels important?

[Floatingaxe]

morality is a societal norm that is defined by the culture.

We aren't called to "morality" but righteousness; and there is one standard for that.

Amen! We are called to righteousness and out of obedience to Jesus Christ, we act. The Holy Spirit is our guide, and He is in unity with the Father, so we must be in unity as well, ultimately, without working at it. It is when humanity interferes and allows its own mindset and selfish interpretations to interfere that we have variations in "morality". Righteousness as found in Jesus Christ is our standard.

Not that I've never asked this before, but as the Holy Spirit is an internal guide to righteousness, and because human thoughts, wants and wishes are also internal, how do Christians differentiate guidance by the Holy Spirit from something they feel strongly about, if the issue in question doesn't contradict Biblical morality? How can one claim to know for certain that they are hearing the Holy Spirit, and not something of their own desires which only feels important?

Such a good question! It is something we all wrestle with for a time until we understand Him, but the Holy Spirit's voice is true and distinct, as he is not a merely internal guide--He is a person, the Spirit of the Person, Jesus Christ, alive in us. Before we come to Christ, our spirits are dead, and we live by conscience alone, but once we come to Him--our spirits awaken, are born, and we know that sweet voice! He loves us, teaches us, urges us and molds us to the image of Jesus Christ...daily.

[secondeve]

So you have a point. Some people have talents that others don't from birth it seems. I suppose a propensity to commit certain crimes could be viable at birth in certain people.

But if that's so, then is it their fault? Did they really decide to be "bad"? And even if they were born this way, don't you suppose that unconditional love might have had an influence?

This is a tricky question - well, it is for me, anyway. As I see it, once we are adults - once we are aware - we have a certain amount of control over our choices. We don't have control over what other people do to us, or what misfortunes befall us, but we do have a choice, to a certain extent, in how we react. Going back to the idea of innate tendencies, someone might flare up in a temper when something goes wrong, while another person might just as easily bottle it up, or turn it aside with a joke. Depending on that innate tendency, reacting a given way - say, calmly - might be harder for some than it is for others. But this does not mean that reacting a given way is always impossible; it just means that it's more difficult and requires more conscious effort.

Say you're a person who's had a tough life, and to whom anger and violence come more easily than calmness and patience. You still have a choice to try and fight your nature. This is, for me, the grey area. What matters in my mind isn't whether or not the person suceeds in their struggle: it might be that, despite their best efforts and intentions, circumstances or external pressures eventually make the toll of resisting too high, because the world can be cruel and so can the people in it. A crime results. Another person might end up comitting the same crime, but without having ever tried to curb their nature. That, to me, makes the second act more reprehensible. The first person has tried to better themselves; the second person has never bothered. Circumstances can remove opportunity and motive from the mix, but they cannot remove choice entirely. This is a tragedy to me. Someone who has known only pain, and who therefore inflicts it, is a source of pity: they might have been different, had they been given even the slimmest chance. But someone who has had every or even any real opportunity to change, and who nonetheless hasn't - there can still be mitigating circumstances, but at this point I feel it becomes harder to tell who might have successfully chosen a different path, and who might not have been able to.

The obvious example springing to my mind is Charles Roberts, who killed the Amish girls. By all accounts, he seems to have had a loving wife and family. He had years in society to confess to his earlier crimes, to talk to someone about what he felt over the death of his daughter. He had people who cared for him, institutions who would've helped; he had a job, and other courses of action and choices open to him besides the brutal one he took. I pity him, but I cannot and will not say that what happened to him in his life forced him to shoot those girls; that he couldn't have made another choice, nature or otherwise. Perhaps he had a sickness which impeded his judgement or thinking - it's possible, and if it were true, that might go some way towards explaining his behaviour without in any way mitigating it.

Unconditional love can be a good thing when it comes to healing, but it doesn't solve every problem. Some people - and I'm not claiming to know how to discern who - would be more likely to better themselves when faced with the prospect of conditional love, of needing to live up to something. Others might try to live up to the idea of unconditional love, but there are those who would, without a doubt, abuse the idea that they could do what they wanted and still be welcomed home. It's a tricky question - have you any further thoughts?

Such a good question! It is something we all wrestle with for a time until we understand Him, but the Holy Spirit's voice is true and distinct, as he is not a merely internal guide--He is a person, the Spirit of the Person, Jesus Christ, alive in us. Before we come to Christ, our spirits are dead, and we live by conscience alone, but once we come to Him--our spirits awaken, are born, and we know that sweet voice! He loves us, teaches us, urges us and molds us to the image of Jesus Christ...daily.

How is the voice distinct? Say, hypothetically, a Christian started convincing themselves that, never having been touched by the Holy Spirit and thus lacking this as a point of comparison, their own powerful wishes were the voice of the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit never touched them, they would go through their life thinking that one kind of thought was the will of God, when in actuality it wasn't. No matter how fabulous the voice is, if we cannot know for sure that it didn't come from us, how can we ever claim to be doing God's will without an external point of comparison?