Christianity is a poor source of moral guidance

Moral behavior is inhibited when we act in order satisfy the desires of the ego. That is the very definition of selfish behavior. It means that I do what I (as a separate self) want, as opposed to what the situation requires. Acting without ego means to act according to the need of the situation. It is right action that is appropriate to the whole.

Quote:

Moral behavior is inhibited when we act in order satisfy the desires of the ego. That is the very definition of selfish behavior. It means that I do what I (as a separate self) want, as opposed to what the situation requires. Acting without ego means to act according to the need of the situation. It is right action that is appropriate to the whole.

This makes me think of that Texas woman who thought, with no regard to herself, that her kids would be better off with Jesus so, acting in accordance with the need of the situation, she drowned them all in the bathtub.

This might be merely a semantic problem, but I still have some difficulty with this notion of a "genuine" good deed.

...the Christian is acting in accordance with god's command. But then wouldn't that make the deed "good?" If one's definition of a "good deed" is a deed done in conformance with god's command, then the Christian's act of feeding the homeless is most definitely a good deed.

On the other hand, if you require that a "good deed" be done out of purely altruistic motives, then it might not qualify. But then you'd have to argue that there's such a thing as pure altruism, otherwise no deed would truly be "good."

This poor woman was so strongly identified with her religious beliefs that they took precedence over common sense and compassion.

agrote wrote:

So Christians face a dilemma. They can be good Christians, and act as their religion tells them to, but then the 'good deeds' they perform will be acts of moral fetishism, rather than genuine good deeds such as feeding the hungry because they are hungry (and not just because the Bible says to).

I don't understand this. If the Bible commands Christians, in general, to do good deeds (say, e.g., helping the homeless), and a certain Christian, acting solely upon that command, does a good deed, how is that not a "genuine" good deed?

Is it because the Christian, all other things being equal, would prefer not to perform the good deed? If that's the case, then my next question would be: so what? I don't see how the good deed performed de re (for its own sake) is substantively different from the good deed performed de dicto, so long as the deed is not performed for bad motives.

For instance, suppose Driver is commanded by the state to obey the traffic laws. Driver, however, all other things being equal, would prefer not to stop at the intersection when the light turns red. Yet he does, solely because he does not want to break the law. Can we thus consider Driver to be law-abiding? I think the answer has to be "yes."

In the same way, if Christian gives a dollar to a beggar because he believes that God would command him to give that dollar to that beggar, then I see no reason to think that he is being anything other than a good Christian by giving the dollar.

There's no dilemma here. Christians who obey the mandatory commands of their religion are, by definition, "good" Christians. If Christianity commands its followers to perform good deeds, then obedience to that command is adherance to the faith, which would seem to me to be the sole criterion on which one is judged to be a "good" Christian or not.

And how was that the need of the situation? Obviously it wasn't. This poor woman was so strongly identified with her religious beliefs that they took precedence over common sense and compassion. That was an extreme case of allowing a belief, or mental position, to substitute for reality. She was severely mentally ill.

IFeelFree wrote:

And how was that the need of the situation? Obviously it wasn't. This poor woman was so strongly identified with her religious beliefs that they took precedence over common sense and compassion. That was an extreme case of allowing a belief, or mental position, to substitute for reality. She was severely mentally ill.

A jury of her peers found her to be sane and sent her to prison.

She thought she was acting with compassion - sending her kids to live with Jesus. HER need in this situation was to relieve her kid's suffering. What SHE saw as their suffering.

She knew she'd get in trouble for it but acting selflessly (in her opinion) she killed her kids. She was willing to sacrifice her freedom to give her kids a better existence.

I'm not arguing that she was right or that she was not mentally ill.

I'm saying that "dissolving your ego" doesn't grant you some purified morality. You might think it does but other people might think you're a criminal or that you're mentally ill.

Anyway, are there any Christians who can tell me what makes an action right or wrong? Do you believe that God's word makes it so, or that other facts about the action (e.g. the fact that it reduces suffering) make it so, and that God's word just reports this to us?

If the former, I give up.

...notion of a "genuine" good deed

But I suspect you're right... I think maybe God's word is what makes things right or wrong in Christianity.

I'm kinda worried, since I'm agreeing with Joe.

agrote wrote:

Anyway, are there any Christians who can tell me what makes an action right or wrong? Do you believe that God's word makes it so, or that other facts about the action (e.g. the fact that it reduces suffering) make it so, and that God's word just reports this to us?

If the former, I give up.

The dilemma is trying to reduce right and wrong action to a set of rules. It cannot be done. We can say that killing is wrong, for instance, but what about defending yourself or your family from an armed killer, or defending your country from an attacking force during wartime, or the doctor who gives a dieing patient an extra shot of morphine to hasten their demise so as to relieve their suffering? All right actions are conditional. When your awareness is fully in the present moment, without the distraction of compulsive thinking, you are open to what is. You look and listen. You are fully aware. Instead of reacting against the situation, you merge with it, and the solution arises out of the situation itself. If action is required, you take action that is appropriate to the whole.

Wouldn't Jesus have said it all of these killings would be wrong?

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

What would Jesus have done in these situations?

maporsche wrote:

Wouldn't Jesus have said it all of these killings would be wrong?

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

What would Jesus have done in these situations?

I believe that "turn the other cheek" really means to be free of anger, or the motive to attack. It is one thing to kill when you are trying to "do the right thing" -- protecting others, relieving suffering, etc. -- and it is quite another to kill out of "blood lust" -- the desire to attack someone for personal gain. It may be impossible for someone to avoid all killing (if they enlist in the armed services, or police, or their family is attacked, etc.), but it is possible to be free of the motive to kill. You can "turn the other cheek" when others slander or threaten you, but still take steps to protect yourself, when necessary, and even act to protect others when the need arises.

agrote wrote:

Anyway, are there any Christians who can tell me what makes an action right or wrong? Do you believe that God's word makes it so, or that other facts about the action (e.g. the fact that it reduces suffering) make it so, and that God's word just reports this to us?

If the former, I give up.

The dilemma is trying to reduce right and wrong action to a set of rules. It cannot be done. We can say that killing is wrong, for instance, but what about defending yourself or your family from an armed killer, or defending your country from an attacking force during wartime, or the doctor who gives a dieing patient an extra shot of morphine to hasten their demise so as to relieve their suffering? All right actions are conditional. When your awareness is fully in the present moment, without the distraction of compulsive thinking, you are open to what is. You look and listen. You are fully aware. Instead of reacting against the situation, you merge with it, and the solution arises out of the situation itself. If action is required, you take action that is appropriate to the whole.

If deeds were good or bad intrinsically, rather than good or bad in relation to how closely they conformed to god's command, then an atheist could be just as moral as a Christian, which, I'm sure, is a completely unacceptable conclusion for some Christians.

Many Christians* perform deeds which make people happy, or reduce suffering - deeds which might be called 'good'. These include charity or missionary work, or simple everyday things. Performing good deeds is part of being a good Christian. But the reason for this (I think) is that the Bible, or the church, or maybe even God himself (if you believe in Him) tells Christians that they should perform these deeds, and that they are good deeds. I remember from Sunday school being taught something like... if a homeless man asks for your hat, give him your coat as well.