What Christianity Really Says

Originally posted by LemonJello
You have none to offer here for your beliefs about the origins of morality or for your claims about atheism (some of which are self-contradictory, so attempts at justifying those through reasons/arguments would be useless anyway). I think we've established that.

You have been offered my reasons and you either ignored, misunderstood or rejected them. That is your entitlement.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It seems plain that God is inessential to the constitutive nature of morals. One doesn't require God to decide what the moral choice is within any given situation. But why be moral? The answer from the Christian perspective seems to be in line with the fact that there are no rational reasons to act morally. At best we ought to act morally because it is e than supply a reason to act morally. He does away with any need for reasons to act morally.

It seems plain that God is inessential to the constitutive nature of morals.

Well, then, why did you claim that God determines what constitutes righteousness? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot hold that righteousness is the stuff of morals and that God determines what constitutes righteousness; and yet somehow also hold that God is inessential to the constitutive nature of morals. That's just contradiction.

Anyway, I would agree that even if God exists He is inessential to the constitutive nature of morals. But many, many theists do not agree with that (and some, like you, hold incoherent views on the matter). For some reason, you come to the aid of theists in these discussions (you did so in a past thread for KellyJay, now here for divegeester) and presume that you can dissolve the dilemma for them. But a person like KellyJay (and divegeester too, from what I can gather of his "arguments" ) does think God is essential to the constitutive nature of morals. So, you're not helping or clarifying their case any; you are putting forth some different account (in this case, a contradictory one).

But why be moral? The answer from the Christian perspective seems to be in line with the fact that there are no rational reasons to act morally. At best we ought to act morally because it is in our self-interest. But truly moral acts are the by-product of a virtuous character rather than self-interest.

I have no idea what you're talking about. So Christians don't think there are any rational reasons to act morally? WOW! Talk about an impoverished view on practical rationality. So how exactly does adding in some supernatural agent make this view more palatable, especially when the supernatural agent is one who, as you claim (albeit as part of contradiction), is inessential to the constitutive nature of morals? That would be like adding in a spoon when all you need is a knife. All this agent can give you is prudential reasons to obey.

By the way, do you have any actual argument for the idea that there are no rational reasons to act morally?

God as perfect righteousness is, of course, the preeminent role model for what it is to be righteous.

In what way is God perfect righteousness? That would suggest there is some independent standard in light of which he counts as perfect. Otherwise, you are saying that God perfectly exemplifies righteousness merely in virtue of being identic with Himself, which is vacuous.

He may not determine what moral choices are best, but he does, by his nature, determine what righteousness is: namely, all-surpassing love.

Again, this is contradictory as far as I can tell.

So, I guess God does much more than supply a reason to act morally. He does away with any need for reasons to act morally.

Well I guess if your view on practical rationality is so impoverished as to imply that there are no rational reasons to act morally, then you'll have to seek out non-rational reasons or, I guess, no reasons at all. 🙄

Sorry, I just don't understand your account. So, on your account, there simply are no reasons in virtue of which persons act morally? Surely, that's empirically false.

Originally posted by divegeester
You have been offered my reasons and you either ignored, misunderstood or rejected them. That is your entitlement.

😵

Originally posted by LemonJello

It seems plain that God is inessential to the constitutive nature of morals.

Well, then, why did you claim that God determines what constitutes righteousness? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot hold that righteousness is the stuff of morals and that God determines what constitutes righteousness; and yet somehow also hold that God e no reasons in virtue of which persons act morally? Surely, that's empirically false.

God, at least in the Trinitarian doctrine within Christianity, consists of a harmonious love relationship between three Persons: God does not declare anything right or wrong, righteous or unrighteous, by fiat. In fact, God, in the Christian view, recognizes right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness, as such, although not based on a standard superior to himself, since God, as three Persons, bears witness to himself: Father-->Son-->Father-->Holy Spirit-->Son-->Holy Spirit-->Father . . . (ad infinitum).

Originally posted by caissad4
Jesus (God) died to save us from himself (God).
Jesus (God) sacrificed himself (God) to save us from eternal damnation which he (God) would inflict upon us. 🙄🙄🙄

Jesus died in order to give mankind a real, clear cut choice, between Salvation and Perdition, between God and Satan/sin.

We Gentiles should be exceedingly thankful for this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You do know that you are making your beliefs look worse, not better?

How so?

What he says is true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was not trying to obfusticate, but rather pointing out your attempts at obfustication.

Do you even know what this word means? I notice you do not even know how to spell it. This tells me this word is a new one on you, even though most of your posts excel at it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Jesus died in order to give mankind a real, clear cut choice, between Salvation and Perdition, between God and Satan/sin.
We Gentiles should be exceedingly thankful for this.

What ?? Jesus (god) died to save us from punishment from god (Jesus). Does the obvious contradiction not show a clear silliness to the whole religious system devised by humans long ago ? I understand the need we humans have to somehow explain our existence and to influence behavior in unenlightened humans. But this Abrahamic concept is just silly. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by caissad4
What ?? Jesus (god) died to save us from punishment from god (Jesus). Does the obvious contradiction not show a clear silliness to the whole religious system devised by humans long ago ? I understand the need we humans have to somehow explain our existence and to influence behavior in unenlightened humans. But this Abrahamic concept is just silly. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

So obviously, we should believe you over the millions of people who find meaning for their lives in this 'Abrahamic' concept?

People are so quick to call people they disagree with as 'unenlightened'. Kind of ironic.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
God, at least in the Trinitarian doctrine within Christianity, consists of a harmonious love relationship between three Persons: God does not declare anything right or wrong, righteous or unrighteous, by fiat. In fact, God, in the Christian view, recognizes right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness, as such, although not based on a standa ...[text shortened]... self[/i]: Father-->Son-->Father-->Holy Spirit-->Son-->Holy Spirit-->Father . . . (ad infinitum).

So what is your position on Christianity?

Rare is the person with such a firm grip on the concept who doesn't have a horse in that race.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
God, at least in the Trinitarian doctrine within Christianity, consists of a harmonious love relationship between three Persons: God does not declare anything right or wrong, righteous or unrighteous, by fiat. In fact, God, in the Christian view, recognizes right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness, as such, although not based on a standa ...[text shortened]... self[/i]: Father-->Son-->Father-->Holy Spirit-->Son-->Holy Spirit-->Father . . . (ad infinitum).

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

How do you address the incoherence? Also, is the Christian perspective on practical rationality really as impoverished as you implied?

Originally posted by Suzianne
So obviously, we should believe you over the millions of people who find meaning for their lives in this 'Abrahamic' concept?
People are so quick to call people they disagree with as 'unenlightened'. Kind of ironic.

If the sole purpose of Christianity is to find meaning for your life then you have affirmed my assertion. My reference to unenlightened was not directed towards Christians, but to the historical attitudes many Christians have held towards "barbarians and savages" which they encountered while expanding their control of the world. 🙄

Originally posted by LemonJello
Not sure what this has to do with anything.

How do you address the incoherence? Also, is the Christian perspective on practical rationality really as impoverished as you implied?

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

It has to do with the Euthyphro dilemma which you've posed. I'm suggesting that God doesn't declare anything good or bad by fiat, but neither does he appeal to a higher standard than himself. At least within the Christian tradition, God is a trinity of three distinct persons. God bears witness to himself based on the perfectly harmonious, love relationship between the three persons of the trinity; Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true... the father who sent me bears witness of me." The Christian God seems to overcome the Euthyphro dilemma, unless you see something that I'm not.

How do you address the incoherence?

Well, within the Christian tradition, the Trinity is acknowledged as being contradictory, with no hope of being logically resolved. Nevertheless it remains central to the Christian faith. Many have endeavored to resolve the contradiction, but only at the cost of abandoning some important doctrine or other concerning the divinity of Christ or the personhood of the Holy Spirit. The usual way of dealing with the contradiction is by assuming that God's essence defies logic. This is how I deal with the problem.

Also, is the Christian perspective on practical rationality really as impoverished as you implied?

Probably not. My understanding is that there are no moral reasons to act morally. Which is a separate issue from the rational analysis of moral obligation. You can tell someone they have a moral obligation to give money to the poor, provided it doesn't leave them in a worse state than those they endeavor to help, but that person can always ask, "But why should I act morally?" What kind of answer is possible? Nothing that follows from logic, it seems (e.g., is-ought). All that we have are prudential reasons to act morally. What I suggested earlier is that virtue ethics, especially within the Christian tradition, answers this problem through a transformation of the person's character (sanctification), so that good is done for its own sake as actions flowing from a virtuous (righteous) person, in which case, no reasons to act morally are needed.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So what is your position on Christianity?

Rare is the person with such a firm grip on the concept who doesn't have a horse in that race.

My position on Christianity is believer. The faith tradition I most identify with is Eastern Orthodoxy, though I'm philosophically aligned with Charles Hartshorne's Process theism, too. LemonJello and Bbarr have inspired me to get my masters in philosophy due to their admirable grasp of the issues, although I'm just starting my upper level classes as an undergraduate. Surprisingly, the deeper I go into philosophy, the more interesting and vivid my faith becomes. Thanks for asking.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
My position on Christianity is believer. The faith tradition I most identify with is Eastern Orthodoxy, though I'm philosophically aligned with Charles Hartshorne's Process theism, too. LemonJello and Bbarr have inspired me to get my masters in philosophy due to their admirable grasp of the issues, although I'm just starting my upper level classes as an ...[text shortened]... per I go into philosophy, the more interesting and vivid my faith becomes. Thanks for asking.

Have you read Olivier Clement's The Roots Of Christian Mysticism? Clement is an Orthodox theologian.