Christian Ethics Exposed

 

In my recent post on pride, I was presented with the following comment and challenge from Ron. This post is my response to that challenge. The challenge came after I said:


" According to Christianity, Yahweh is "all good." If Yahweh is all good, then he would be completely virtuous. But Yahweh is not completely virtuous, because he exhibits certain vices, such as jealousy and anger. Now, let's examine your attempt at Humpty Dumpty Semantics. You think that you can change the meaning of the term by mere assertion. Almost every culture list jealousy and anger as vices. The Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, and so on. In almost all the religions, jealousy and anger are vices. Worse yet, even according to Christianity, jealousy and anger are vices. Furthermore, according to Christians, these are "absolute" and come from Yahweh. But how bizarre, Yahweh himself exhibits jealousy and anger according to the bible! Note, for it to be absolute, there would be no exception to the rule. No matter what the condition, anger and jealousy would still be vices. The Christian claims "god is good" and "god is virtuous"--based on what standard? As you illustrate, if the standard changes, and is applied differently to make whatever Yahweh does "good and virtuous" even if it is a vice, you would have no standard at all. It is clear that jealousy and anger are vices, according to Christianity, and have been considered to be vices by almost all the major cultures and religions. You illustrate your bias and ignorance when you try to make anger and jealousy virtues in an attempt to make your god and bible seem consistent--when they are not. According to the bible itself, Yahweh is not all good and virtuous because he exhibits the vices of jealousy and anger. How sad. You want to take scripture, like Humpty Dumpty, and make it mean whatever you want it to mean. To claim that something is a vice, and then say it is a virtue, is totally inconsistent and ignorant."


To clarify,  I said that according to Christians, these are "absolute" and come from Yahweh. To claim that something is a vice and that it is a an absolute, and then say it is a virtue, is totally inconsistent and ignorant."  I will explain this below and offer a better explanation as to what counts as a virtue and under what circumstances one would be justified in overriding that virtue in favor of another virtue.


The challenge was as follows:

"Short and sweet today... I'll attempt to get you out of the university classroom and into the real world. Here's a scenario for you to apply your logic towards.

A father's daughter is raped. He loves her more than life itself. Do you imagine that he is angry with the man who raped her? Now imagine that the man continues to rape her every day. Do you think the father is angry with the man who is raping her? Do you think he can still be a loving father and at the same time be angry? Would you consider him loving if he were not angry with the man who raped her? Would you consider him loving if he continued to allow the man to rape her daily?

Since you are a perfect person I'm hoping you can tell me the best way to handle this situation. First imagine she were your daughter."

As I pointed out before, I am a Peircian pragmatist, and as a result, there is no distinction for me between the university classroom and the real world. "Speaking of the real world"-- that is odd coming from a Christian who bases his hopes on a fake afterlife, as opposed to "living in the real world."

First of all, Ron's example is neither short nor sweet. In fact, it is complicated, and is a bizarre example for him to use, as it will illustrate the weakness of his position, and for the Christian conception of their own God(s), Yahweh and/or Jesus; and the Christian religion in general.

Secondly, Ron's example does not present a moral dilemma for me nor an objective morality that is not founded on a God, in particular the Christian God Yahweh. Worst yet, his example presents a problem and dilemma for Christian Ethics and the Divine Command Theory and again, for the Christian conception of their own God(s), Yahweh and or Jesus, and the Christian religion in general. I will show that if I were the father in his example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him to prevent him from raping my daughter. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and my arguments will be supported by Biblical scriptures and Normative Ethical Theories.

Let us consider Ron's example: "A father's daughter is raped. A daughter he loves more than life itself."

Now, if Jesus had his way, no one would love anyone more than they love him! As Nietzsche pointed out:

"Love of one man is a barbarity: for it is practiced at the expense of all the rest. Also the love for God."

Not only is Yahweh/Jesus' demand for love at the expense of family and all else barbaric, it is the highest form of egotism/narcissism/perversion I can think of.

The bible is full of contradictions, as I will illustrate shortly, and have already done so earlier. According to Ron's god, he is to love him, and love his enemy MORE than he loves his daughter. So, in his example, according to Jesus, he ought love the man raping his daughter, more than he loves his daughter!--how bizarre. According to Jesus:

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."  Luke 6:27-36

As the Christian Pastor, Ralph F. Wilson notes, "The world says -- RIGHTLY(my emphasis) -- "Love your friends. Be loyal to your friends. Look out for your friends." Why? Friends will look out for you. Loving your friends is just smart...Loving your friends and your spouse is just enlightened self-interest."

So again I say--bizarre. The Christian must resort to Humpty Dumpty semantics in order to try to make sense out of this nonsense. For in Ron's example, the father ought love the man raping his daughter, more than he loves his own daughter! Not only is he supposed to love him, but he is also supposed to express his love for his daughter's attacker. To paraphrase Jesus, "If someone rapes you, let him rape you again. If someone takes your virginity, do not stop him from taking more. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." Now, let's see if we substitute agape love for eros or philia, does that help? Agape love is:

"...one of the Greek words translated into English as love, one which became particularly appropriated in Christian theology as the love of God or Christ for mankind. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love. Although the word does not have specific religious connotation, the word has been used by a variety of contemporary and ancient sources, including Biblical authors and Christian authors. Thomas Jay Oord has defined agape as "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being." In his book, The Pilgrimage, author Paulho Coelho defines it as "the love that consumes," i.e., the highest and purest form of love, one that surpasses all other types of affection. Contemporary philosopher Slavoj Zizek refers to it as "political love." Greek philosophers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to philia (an affection that could denote friendship, brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros, an affection of a sexual nature.

Although some sources claim agape appears in the Odyssey twice, the word is in fact not used there. Instead, two forms of the word agape may be found: agapêton and agapazomenoi. Agapêton is found in Book 5 of the Odyssey and means "beloved" or "well-loved". Agapazomenoi is found in books 7 and 17 of the Odyssey and means “to treat with affection.

The verb agapao is used extensively in the Septuagint as the translation of the common Hebrew term for love which is used to show affection for husband/wife and children, brotherly love, and God's love for humanity. It is uncertain why agapao was chosen, but similarity of consonant sounds (aḥava) may have played a part. The Greek concept may have originated as a transliteration from some Semitic tongue. This usage provides the context for the choice of this otherwise obscure word, in preference to other more common Greek words, as the most frequently used word for love in Christian writings. The use of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers, but is clearly derived from the use of the verb agapao in the Septuagint."*

Now, according to Christians, one ought to have agape love for his enemies. We see from the definition above, that would mean Christians ought have unconditional love for their enemies. Also note that Yahweh is kind to the "ungrateful and wicked," according to passages above cited from Luke 6.  In Ron's example, the father ought have unconditional love for his daughter's rapist, and Yahweh will be "kind" to the rapist. I still say--BIZARRE!! According to Christians, one ought be "self-sacrificing" to his enemies. So, the father and daughter ought sacrifice themselves to the rapist/attacker. Perhaps the father can "turn his cheek" over to the rapist too. I still say-BIZARRE!! According to Christian agape love, the father should respond to the rapist with well-being instead of ill-being. I still say-BIZARRE!! Well, I hope that you get the point.

The Christian conception of a god that has unconditional love contradicts the god of the bible, Yahweh, whose love is conditional. According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh only loves you if you keep his laws and commandments. As the bible says:

"If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers." Deuteronomy 7:12

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments. " Deuteronomy 5:9-10

Therefore, according to the bible, and Christians, Yahweh's love is unconditional, and NOT unconditional!--a contradiction. For if Yahweh's love was unconditional, then there would be no conditions involved. But as the passages cited above illustrate, Yahweh's love has conditions! The claim that we ought to have Christian agape love, a divine, unconditional love, and I quote from above, the use , "...of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers"--instead of innovation, I say a BIZARRE INVENTION!! For, we should have the kind of love that Yahweh exhibits in Deuteronomy. That is, you should punish those who hate you, and love those who love you. In the case of the father whose daughter is being raped, he ought to punish and HATE the rapist. The father ought stop the rapist from raping his daughter. The father ought show the rapist no mercy. The daughter ought not give herself to the rapist if he demands her too, nor should the father give his daughter to the rapists.

Christian Pastor, Ralph F. Wilson said it right, "The world says -- RIGHTLY(my emphasis) -- "Love your friends." And I add to that, the world says--rightly HATE your enemies,  and in the spirit of Yahweh, hate them and show them your "wrath" if they treat you unjustly.  In Ron's example, the father ought to hate the rapist and show the rapist wrath to prevent his daughter from being raped.

While Christians claim that Yahweh is all loving and even loves the sinner and they cite New Testament scripture, such as John 3:16, as support and proof of this interpretation, we also find that according to New Testament scriptures that Yahweh does not love the sinner, and in fact, he hates and punishes the sinner:

"You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors." Psalm 5:5-6

"The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates." Psalm 11:5

"The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry; the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth." Psalm 34:15-16

"The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous." Proverbs 3:33

"The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death. The Lord detests men of perverse heart but he delights in those whose ways are blameless. Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free." Proverbs 11:19-21

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him." John 3:36

"For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer,but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” 1 Peter 3:12

Therefore, If I were the father in Ron's example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and as I have demonstrated above, and I support this on the basis of Biblical scriptures. If anyone can cite Biblical scripture that contradicts this, such as the passage I cited above, and if, according to Ron, this would somehow not be acting divinely and is not in line with being perfect, and thus, I am not perfect, then Yahweh is not perfect--and it would be inconsistent and contradictory. This would be in accordance with my argument in the post that generated his comment and my replies to him, and eventually this post, that shows that if we accept the Christian conception of their ethics and the Christian' s claim that Yahweh is all good and thus virtuous is false, since Yahweh exhibits anger, jealousy, and now we can add to that list--hate, which according Christianity are vices. Now we can see how complicated Ron's example is, and how it illustrates the problems, inconsistencies, and contradictions within Christianity.

On the other hand, if we go by Old Testament law, and remember, Jesus said to follow ALL the laws and ALL the prophets until heaven and earth disappear, (Matt 5:18) then if I was the father in Ron's example, the result of my daughter being raped depends on whether or not she is a virgin, betrothed or married, or whether she was raped in the wilderness or not.  I will address this issue in my next post title "Christian Ethics Exposed Part 2 - Sanctioned Rape".  

Let's continue. Ron's complicated example is easily handled by other normative ethical theories and non Christian conceptions of morality which posit absolute moral rules.

In ethics, we have absolute rules and non absolute rules. Christians claim that their God's rules are absolute and non changing. According to this view, there can be no objectivity without absolute direct moral rules; what they call commandments. Nevertheless, Christians claim they are under a new covenant, and the old laws no longer apply. However, in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus said to follow all the laws and all the prophets until heaven and earth disappear--but that is a discussion for another posting, as this too is inconsistent and contradictory.

There are no absolutes. The problem with absolutist Normative Ethical Theories is that they use specific factor fixed-weight rules. A factor is a characteristic of action. For example, an action can be characterized as truthful or lying; prideful or arrogant. Truth telling or lying; having pride or being arrogant, are factors of some actions. In general, when we think that an action is right or wrong, we almost always describe a factor. "What did Paul do that was wrong?" "Paul lied to his brother about using his bike." A rule has a fixed-weight if it cannot be overwritten by other factors. A factor overrides another when its presence changes and judgement we would otherwise make about a situation. A variable weight factor in contrast to fixed weight factor is one that varies from context to context. For example, if a father told his child he/she should murder their neighbor, which would be breaking the commandment of "do not murder" but if the child disobeyed their father, he/she would be breaking the commandment of "honoring their father." In this case, both commandments are supposed to be specific-fixed-weight rules.

According to Christians, Yahweh commandments are absolutes, and Christians claim that without absolute rules, there can be no objectivity or morality. This example illustrates that there are no absolute moral rules. Yet, we still have morality and objectivity via Normative Ethical Theories that do not require a god, such as Utilitarianism, which means doing what increases the overall good.

Variable-weight factors, in contrast to fixed-weight factors, are those whose weight varies from context to context. Such rules do not have the problem presented above for absolute specific-fixed-weight rules. In the example above, for instance, the weight of not committing murder outweighs honoring thy father.

In the beginning of the pride post, I used Aristotle's definition of virtue. To illustrate that the Christian conception of pride leads to misuse, ambiguity and equivocation. However, that is not my view of the Normative Ethical Theory of virtue. Note, that a virtue that required a certain type of behavior, would be an absolute, and as I have illustrated above, absolute rules do not work. Likewise, I would argue, absolute virtues do not work either. From a Christian standpoint, one might argue that a virtuous man would never lie, get angry, hate, and so on. However, as in the above example, under certain circumstances there are justifiable conditions for lying, anger, hate, and other so-called vices, and in such circumstances, these vices would be virtues. How would I determine what are virtues and vices, and under what conditions a virtue might be overridden by another virtue. One method that could be used is JS Mill's indirect rule utilitarianism. The indirect rule is as follows:

If any proposed direct moral rule, when generally acted from, increases the overall good, then it is a correct direct moral rule.

In this case, we can substitute virtue for direct moral rule. So, it would lead:

If any proposed virtue, when generally acted from, increases the overall good, then it is a virtue.

Now I can handle the example where the father is angry. Given the circumstances where "I am the father of a daughter who is raped, a daughter I love more than life itself."--then I would be justified in hating the rapist and I showing him my wrath, and I would be virtuous in doing so. Therefore, if I were the father in Ron's example, I could hate the rapists and not love him. I could also use force to stop him and unleash my wrath upon him to prevent him from raping my daughter. I could do all of this and still be perfect, that is be without sin, and my conclusion was supported by Biblical scriptures and Normative Ethical Theories.

Nietzsche goes further and actually argues that under certain circumstances, some characteristic that is a virtue can actually be a vice; and some characteristic that is a vice can actually be a virtue.  For example, in the time of war, being a "good thief" and thus being able to steal supplies from the enemy would be a virtue--stealing in this case would be a virtue. Likewise, hate would be virtue if it provided the motivation and energy to defeat the enemy.

*agape love wikipedia