Friday, April 16, 2021

Christian Morality


Thus the good was done to all men, not merely to the household of faith.

-          Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, third century

The Age of Paradise: Christendom from Pentecost to the First Millennium, by John Strickland

In the aftermath of the notorious Spartacus rebellion, for instance, the road leading to Rome had been lined with no fewer than six thousand crucified slaves.

Rome was a cruel society, albeit the Romans did not believe it to be.  They practiced their ethic, finding their behaviors to be quite moral.  As Strickland notes, “Roman statesmen were connoisseurs of cruelty,” and this cruelty was not limited to the early Christians.

There is the story of Perpetua and Felicity, a young, aristocratic woman and her slave girl.  In 203, they were rounded up and brought to the central amphitheater to be executed – a fate which could be avoided if they gave up the Christian faith.  They would not.

The two walked into the arena together, hand in hand – the aristocrat with the slave.  Their death was to be especially cruel – first a bear, then a leopard, finally a raging bull.  None having fulfilled their purpose, finally the executioner finished the task.

Strickland notes that this event was one of many that began to shake traditional pagan morality.  The spectators could not help but see the victimization of the Christians and the fact that a slave was held in regard by the noblewoman.  They saw an image of a society far different than their own.

How to contrast some of the key features of the pagan religion and the Christian?  Many gods vs. one God; the world a spiritual prison vs. a world created in goodness; the gods appear as men vs. man created in God’s image; a god becoming man is unconscionable vs. the Incarnation.

These differences, coupled with Christ’s moral teaching, would present to the Roman world an ethic almost diametrically contrary to their own.  The improvements, which we take for granted today, were remarkable and stunning.  Christianity, blamed by many today for all the ills of the West, instead was the cure.

A noblewoman would hold hands with a slave – this was unbelievable to the Roman world, a shock to the system of values that had to be internalized by many of the watchers.  Blood sport was a normal part of Roman life, but while others were condemned as escaped slaves, murderers, or insurgents, Christians were condemned for being Christian.  And then, once again, the picture of the two young women comes into view.

Roman pagan morality held no meaningful concept of mercy, compassion, or forgiveness – mercy, at best, given some room as long as it didn’t interfere with honor.  Even more: concepts such as mercy, and especially forgiveness, were considered disgraceful in Roman society.  Conquest and vengeance were held in high regard – Odysseus would slaughter his wife’s host of suiters. 

The very question of mercy for the vulnerable and suffering was problematic.  Compassion disrupts the proper functioning of reason; therefore, it was usually treated as a vice. 

A truly virtuous Roman could look at the suffering of others without wincing.

Slavery offers another window.  Plato considered it inevitable and appropriate; Aristotle went further: slavery was not only necessary, but expedient.  It was part of the natural order of things.  To ameliorate slavery would have been seen as unethical, as it would subvert a social order that took for granted that some would legitimately dominate over others.

The Christians, on the contrary, were commanded to love.  And the Romans couldn’t help but see this played out.  They would care for the poor – Christian or pagan.  During times of plague, the Christians would remain in the cities to care for the suffering, and die with them. 

What of women?  The early Church was overwhelmingly female – which seems quite contrary to the patriarchal view of Christianity.  “This is hardly surprising, because Christianity dignified women.”  Paganism, on the other hand, assigned a low value to women. 

Female humanity was considered naturally inferior to male.  Aristotle would offer that women had no legitimate claim to equality of any kind – not political, not social, not intellectual.  He regarded femininity as a deformity.  For Plato, not only were women physically inferior, but morally and spiritually of less value as well.

Athens denied all rights to women; they were political non-persons.  At marriage, they were basically the property of the husband.  They were not educated, with the primary role to bear children for the husband – who could divorce them for any reason whatsoever.  They were usually consigned to the innermost rooms of the house, living a remote and socially insignificant life.

This led, naturally, to the infanticide of newborn (primarily) girls.  Greek and Roman culture was steeped in this culture.  Aristotle advocated a legal requirement that no child born with a deformity should be allowed to live; Plato found infanticide a necessary part of the ideal civilization.

He argued that if a human being lacks the capacity to reason, he is not really a human being at all, but rather subhuman.

And as females were naturally inferior to males, the practice of killing newborn girls was particularly justified.  The Romans adopted such views.  Seneca would write about the social benefit of killing deformed and unwanted children – grouping such as these with rabid dogs. 

Infants could be placed outdoors, to die from exposure; they would be strangled or drowned.  A Roman sewer in Palestine was clogged with the bodies of some one hundred newborn infants.  A similar number had been found near a second-century Roman villa in Britain.

Abortion was also a regular family-planning practice – and, obviously, with no ultrasound or genetic testing available, both male and female, healthy or sickly, were killed in this manner.  Aristotle would encourage abortion for any parents who have too many children.

The practice of infanticide and abortion was so common and accepted, that parents could speak openly to one another about their experiences.  A husband, on travel for business, would write home to his wife: “If you are delivered of a child [before I come home], if it is a boy keep it, if it is a girl discard it.”

This husband could not be described as a sinister example.  He ended his letter with a strong expression of affection: “You have sent me word not to forget you.  How can I forget you?  I beg you not to worry.”  It is certainly good that the wife’s parents did not think of her as this husband thought of his potentially-female child.

Christianity from the beginning forbade all such forms of abortion and infanticide; Christianity treated women with respect.  The Didache (The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations), a first or second century writing dealing with ethics and various practices and rituals, would be unambiguous on these points.

There is more: sexual integrity, chastity, and monogamy:

Sexually speaking, pagan Rome was a man’s world in which male promiscuity was broadly celebrated and institutionalized. …Rome’s culture of male virility encouraged not only numerous and frequent heterosexual relationships but homosexual ones as well.

Status would be gained especially by engaging in such acts with those of lower status, especially slaves.  Slaves had no legal protection at all from sexual exploitation and abuse.

For the ancients, the body was disposable; the soul was eternal.  Christianity would link the body to the soul, with all of the moral conclusions that this would entail; the body and soul were both hallowed.  The radical changes would come, not from regulations, but from this Christian anthropology. 


When we renounce the Christian faith, we abandon all right to Christian morality.

-          From The Twilight of the Idols, by Friedrich Nietzsche

Christian morality did not naturally evolve from the Greek and Roman via an evolutionary process.  It was not an inevitability.  There were many other societies in the world 2000 years ago that did not so evolve; there are many societies today that have never achieved the position offered by Christian morality.

Sure, get rid of Christianity.  Is there any possibility that freedom will ensue?  Is it conceivable, to any but the most irrational, that private property for every individual will survive?

We see the evidence today in reverse.  We have lived for more than 125 years in a West that has suffered through Nietzsche’s announcement of the death of God.  One can draw an almost continuous downward sloping line that measures our declining liberty since that time.


Rome would suffer a population decline – too few women and too many men, driven by the infanticide primarily focused on infant girls.

With women joining the Church in greater numbers than men, Christianity would naturally increase, as more children would be born in Christian households.  Even when the father was not Christian, the mother would hold influence given their manner in the family – this as the Apostle Paul and others have written and taught in the many letters of the New Testament.

…many were the men who found in their Christian wives an inspiration that pagan marriage, with its aimless sexuality and debased standards of love, utterly lacked.

Christianity grew rapidly, driven in large part by these significant cultural dynamics: Christianity offered a dignity to the disenfranchised that was completely alien to those in the Greek and Roman world. 


  1. Dear BM,
    Great post. I just happened to watch this week and old debate (2008) between Peter Hitchens and his brother Christopher on the Iraq War and religion.
    Christopher was brilliant, witty, humorous, and had the audience in his pocket. Yet, I think he was mostly wrong, and often obfuscating on virtually every topic.
    Peter often looked lost. Christopher’s main point about religion, perhaps especially Christianity, was exactly opposite to yours in this post. The question I would have asked him is “Why do you hate something (God) so much that does not exist?”

    1. "Why do you hate something (God) so much that does not exist"

      Because deep down I think they know He exists and they are in purposeful rebellion against Him for some reason or other.

      Maybe it's because they hate their parents, or they want to have multiple sex partners, or sex partners of the same sex, or maybe they were hurt by a Christian, or they have an erroneous Marxist/Progressive/Feminist view of the history of the Church and Western civilization, or maybe they just don't like the idea of having any authority above them because their monumental egos cannot brook it, or maybe they see the world as flawed and imperfect because people suffer and they think God is cruel for making it so.

      I became an agnostic in my teens because I couldn't believe that so many decent people around the world who were not Christian were going to burn in Hell when they died. It was out of a Christian compassion for others that I lost my faith. It took me a while to realize my error. But I'm still not thrilled about the possibility that nice people on earth may burn for not accepting Christ. I just see it as above my pay grade. Whether the Bible is wrong or right about this only God knows. But I view the Bible (and perhaps this makes me a bad Christian) as a book written and compiled by flawed humans like you and I. I look to the Bible for consistent and coherent messages and as the closest thing we have to the Word of God, filtered as I believe it was, through many imperfect souls.

    2. Bret Weinstein says something like "I don't want to believe God is real because then I have to worry about what He thinks."

    3. The idea of a supreme judge who's judgement you cannot even escape with death; who has all the evidence... of everything you've ever done or said or even thought about doing or saying; and who has the power to decide your fate for eternity is a bit terrifying.

    4. That those in the top of the human hierarchy believe that they will face a judgement after death for their actions while alive was one of the better guarantors of civil treatment and liberty.

  2. Humans do not possess a "soul".
    Look at the way the bible uses the word "soul".
    The confusion comes from a misreading of Gen 2:7 :(KJV) "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man >became a living soul<." Other translations have "living being" or "living creature" in place of "living soul". Notice it does not say God attached, or connected, or added a "soul" to the living body he just created.

    Look at Rev 16:3 (KJV) where it states that "every living soul died in the sea." Obviously there are no human souls "living in the sea". Other translations use "every >living thing< in the sea died". So when the Bible speaks of a "soul" it merely means a living creature, >any< living creature, including animals and insects.

    Humans are purely corporeal creatures that exist entirely within a human body. There is no ethereal, immaterial ghost-like soul that goes anywhere. If humans can leave their body and exist elsewhere as a spirit, then what is the point of the resurrection?

    Following the resurrection and judgement the redeemed will live on the "new earth" forever (they will never die) with Jesus as their king.

    1. Sheesh! What is "mafe in God's image" means to you? A man is a mouse is a bug?
      Who/ what will be with Jesus when Jesus said to another crucified "today you will be with me in paradise?" Who/what will be given by the sea and arise from their grave and return with Christ on that day?

    2. I've heard this interpretation before, and I think there is some evidence for it. But whether we rest unconscious until Jesus returns or whether we go to an interim Heaven before that day, I don't know. Above my pay grade. I'm sure God has it all figured out. Either way sounds nice to me.

    3. Soul Sleeping ... that is a Jehovah's Witnesses thing.

      We were created as a duality of body-spirit. Soul can be used instead of spirit, although, soul is also used as the emotional aspect of humanity.

      Just a couple of exexamples.


      1 Corinthians 15
      35 But someone will ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come? 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
      42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
      If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.


      2 Corinthians 5
      6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
      7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
      8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

    4. I'm fairly confident and in agreement with others that this seems to be the ramblings of some JW, because of its juvenile ineptitude demonstrated toward exegesis and historical orthodoxy. The soul (nefesh) is the unified composite of the body (bâsâr/sóma) and spirit (rûach/pneûma). The soul is the color purple and the body and spirit are red and blue, they mix together and produce an indivisible unity. Yes, when the body dies existence (or, conscious existence) ceases, not analogous to a battery being removed because that would imply the independence of the spirit and reduce the human to a quasi-Platonic ghost-in-the-shell. The best analogy is simply something (a singular and whole object) being broken, it's no longer one, it needs to be healed. Call the intermediate state soulsleep or whatever, I abide by the conditionalist tradition well attest even into the post-Nicene era. But by no means are humans "just bodies," which is a ridiculous physicalism which has no, can have no, and has never had a place in Christian theology EVER. "If humans can leave their body and exist elsewhere as a spirit, then what is the point of the resurrection?" Yes, that is true, but that doesn't mean there isn't an incorporeal aspect to men, and the Resurrection/spiritual world necessitates that there IS an incorporeal aspect. Gosh, this is so misled and how anyone is able to miss the clear precepts of Scripture on this is baffling. The broken soul will be healed by the blood of Christ Who will, as He Himself experienced and thereby ensured for the saints, heal the rupture formed by Death and Sin and annihilate them both (Rev. 20-22). Idk what you believe but it isn't Christian.

  3. There is an invalid word-game that Christians often play. It is to treat all good acts by Christians as evidence of the goodness of Christianity, while treating bad acts of Christians as merely failures to practice Christianity.

    However, Christianity is not all the worthy actions of Christians. It is a set of ideas. There are many worthy actions of Atheists as well. Will Christians praise Atheism as the cause of those good acts? I doubt it. Quite the opposite. They play the same invalid game and take note of only bad acts by atheists to prove how bad atheism is. Their other word-game is to pretend that Atheism is a set of ideas rather than merely the lack of one idea.

    Of all the set of ideas which is Christianity, self-sacrifice and faith are the most harmful. That some monk in the third century invented a wonderful widget does not change the fact that self-sacrifice and faith are very destructive ideas.

    That parents may or should sacrifice their children is a biblical proposition promoted in the Old Testament and then made the basis of the New Testament. To criticize the Romans for such crimes while claiming that Christianity is the antidote is an immense irony.

    1. There is a simple test to conclude whether Christianity or the actions of the individual or group of supposed Christians are bad.

      (1) Are the tenets of the Christian Church good?
      (2) Are the bad actions of the individual or group in question in line with Christian tenets?

      If (1) is yes and (2) is no, then it should be clear that it is the individual and not the religion who's to blame.

    2. Come on, John. You can do better than this.

      Christianity is a set of ideas. Well, OK, I won't dispute that here. Is atheism also a set of ideas or only the lack of one idea--that there is a god?

      "They [Christians]...take note of only bad acts by atheists to prove how bad atheism is."

      You condemn this in Christians, but then do exactly the same thing just a few sentences later.

      "That parents may or should sacrifice their children is a biblical proposition promoted in the Old Testament and then made the basis of the New Testament. To criticize the Romans for such crimes while claiming that Christianity is the antidote is an immense irony."

      You have taken one bad act from the dustbin of history and used it as an example of how bad Christianity is, yet you find fault with Christians who do the same thing from the other direction. This is nothing more than rank hypocrisy. You should stop.

      The historical fact at Abraham's time is that child sacrifice was a common practice within that culture. It ended in Abraham's life, however, when God told him NOT to sacrifice his child, but to let him live, from which rose the "idea" that human life has value and that no one, not even tyrants and autocrats, can violate that value by murder.

      Instead of comparing it with Christianity, why not equate the "child sacrifice" of Abraham's day with the modern day version--legal, voluntary abortion on demand, which is totally contradictory to the concept of self-sacrifice, which you despise? After all, which group loves children more--the ones who want to let them live or the ones who want to kill them?

      "...self-sacrifice and faith are the most harmful...self-sacrifice and faith are very destructive ideas."

      Contrary to your assertion, this is not a fact. It is an opinion, which you are entitled to, but this does not make it a fact. You know the saying that opinions are like a certain anatomical body part...everyone has one and, quite frankly, this one stinks.

      I challenge you to prove conclusively with logic, reason, and good argument that faith and self-sacrifice are, in fact, harmful and destructive.

      No opinions. No bald statements. No innuendoes. No assertions. Just logic and reason. A + B = C. Faith and self-sacrifice equal destruction.

      Show us why this is true. I don't think you can.

    3. Abortion: the sacrifice of the child by the mother (and, sometimes, father) in order that she (they) might enjoy a better life than otherwise.

    4. Jeremiah 7
      The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 2 Stand in the gate of the Lord’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, all you of Judah who enter in at these gates to worship the Lord!’ 3 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. 4 Do not trust in these lying words, saying, ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these.’
      5 For if you thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, if you thoroughly execute [a]judgment between a man and his neighbor, 6 if you do not oppress the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, or walk after other gods to your hurt, 7 then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.
      8 Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit. 9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal, and walk after other gods whom you do not know, 10 and then come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are delivered to do all these abominations’? 11 Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, says the Lord.


      28 So you shall say to them, ‘This is a nation that does not obey the voice of the Lord their God nor receive correction. Truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth. 29 Cut off your hair and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on the desolate heights; for the Lord has rejected and forsaken the generation of His wrath.’ 30 For the children of Judah have done evil in My sight, says the Lord. They have set their abominations in the house which is called by My name, to [e]pollute it. 31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart.
      32 Therefore behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room. 33 The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the heaven and for the beasts of the earth. And no one will frighten them away. 34 Then I will cause to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride. For the land shall be desolate.

  4. "...Christianity would naturally increase, as more children would be born in Christian households."

    It is still true today that Christian households have more children. Add in the Mormon and Amish religions, both of which strongly promote large families. If there is any reason that this concept is not evident, it is because the number of households which are not truly Christian are increasing relative to those which are.

    However, as in Rome and Greece, today's world is rapidly destroying its own. Between the current trend toward low or no reproduction, either through personal choice or deliberate abortions, those who do not value children are committing long-term suicide. Eventually, at some point in the future, those who have large families will begin to grow relative to those who do not...and the cycle will start all over again.

    From my perspective, it seems that the "weeds" are being removed from the garden so that the desired "flowers" can bloom again.

    1. The problem with this is simple: The other side doesn't need to have children when they reproduce memetically, have assumed control of most of the education/media complex and have evolved to subverted Christianity for close to two centuries now.
      Unless one seeks a demographic battle of attrition better think again.

    2. I do not seek a demographic battle of attrition, but that is what is happening. When it is over, the ones who are left standing will be those who value their children. The ones who don't will be gone.

      Demographics and attrition matter. It is why so many States around the world are raising the alarm about low birth rates. They know what is coming.

    3. As I was saying. The writing is on the wall.

  5. "The very question of mercy for the vulnerable and suffering was problematic. Compassion disrupts the proper functioning of reason; therefore, it was usually treated as a vice."

    "A truly virtuous Roman could look at the suffering of others without wincing."

    Would this explain why those who are focused exclusively on reason hate Christianity so much, as Ira has already mentioned? After all, agape love is not reasonable. Compassion is not reasonable. "Give and it shall be given" is not reasonable. Self-sacrifice is not reasonable. Dying for a belief and cause is not reasonable.

    There are many other examples of Christianity which fit this pattern, but they work and, historically, produce good results.

    1. I don't think that compassion and self-sacrifice are unreasonable. It depends on what your end is. If you're end is the preservation of your own life and increasing living standards, then yes it would be un reasonable to care for and sacrifice yourself for others.

      But there is a reason for these behaviors, even outside just pleasing God. Compassion and self-sacrifice each reduce uncertainty in society. A general knowledge that should you lose employment others around you would have compassion for you (and your family) and sacrifice some of their own time, energy, wealth to help you get on your feet is a boon to society. This is a society that can take risks and strive to do things better.

      A society wherein anyone is willing to sacrifice for the good of all, should the real need arise, is also an uncertainty reducing factor that benefits the longevity and survivability of the society.

      "but they work and, historically, produce good results."


    2. I do not dispute that compassion and self-sacrifice are beneficial to general society, but the good that comes out of these practices does not explain why people practice them.

      Reason says that the practice of compassion, self-sacrifice, and other similar acts is beneficial because it shows up in the end result as beneficial. If A, then B, but only because we have seen it prove itself over and over in the past and can extrapolate that concept into the future.

      However, no one has ever had compassion or sacrificed themselves for the good of someone else because they reasoned that the future benefit for society at large was worth the immediate loss personally. The Good Samaritan helped the robbed, beaten man in his distress because he already possessed the heart condition known as compassion and was willing to destroy his own well-being because of that compassionate attitude. It had nothing to do with reason. The man needed assistance, the Good Samaritan could provide it, and he did what was necessary even though it cost him time, money, and effort.

      Love, in action, produces good results throughout society. This much is true, but people do not love because it is reasonable. They love because it is embedded deep within their hearts. Compassion and self-sacrifice spring out of love, which cannot be reasoned. Love is not reasonable. Love is and people act that way, quite often unreasonably.

      I stand my ground.

    3. Fair point. I agree that compassion is built in to us, and that we do not perform compassionate acts because we reason that society will benefit, but my point is that God had a reason for building us so.

      I have this idea that God created existence and us for the sole purpose of experiencing love, something even He, who possesses the totality of all perfect reason, perhaps could not experience on His own. In this way, I believe love is beyond reason, though not unreasonable.

    4. "They love because it is embedded deep within their hearts."

      Like many, I teared up when Iron Man saved the universe through his death. Why would that story of love move me so (one of the better modern usurpations of Christ's Passion)? Why did I not have the same feeling when Iron Man or any of the Avengers took victory without dying themselves?

      I don't know, perhaps it is something embedded deep within my heart.

    5. That was a very compelling moment for sure, especially since Iron Man, as portrayed by RDJ, was one of the most lovable, convincing, and entertaining of the Marvel characters. Iron Man, like Batman in the DC universe, had no special powers, only his intricate and unyielding mind and supreme problem solving ability... and a big wallet. This human quality to Iron Man makes his heroic feat all the more meaningful. If Captain Marvel, with all her crazy abilities, had ripped the stones out of Thanos' glove and snapped her fingers we all would have yawned and left the theater.

      "Why did I not have the same feeling"

      I guess it's because of the price paid for victory. If someone saves the world by snapping his fingers... I mean by only snapping his fingers and nothing else, there is no great emotion because the price paid by the hero is tiny. But if the hero loses his life in the process, then the price paid is the ultimate.

      I remember reading a recent story about a father who saw his two sons swept out to sea in a rip current. He swam out them, and though he could not save them, he helped keep them afloat until help arrived. A couple of guys trained in military survival swimming saw the situation and swam out to help them. They swam the boys back safely, but by the time they got back out to where the father was treading water, he was unconscious and ultimately died. The father drowned and died a perfect sacrifice for his two sons. He paid a heavy price to save his boys and maybe that's why it is so moving. It makes us wonder if we could have done the same thing in his shoes. Could we in that moment have exhibited perfect love like him?

      Found it:

    6. Consider these two scenarios and which do you think and feel is the bigger and more meaningful sacrifice?

      1) a poor woman spends her entire life tending to the sick and needy on behalf of the Catholic Church, all the while suffering with them.

      2) a rich billionaire gives himself and raises further millions of dollars to third world countries to help alleviate material poverty.

      The first gave her whole life to loving others, though may have not materially improved anyone's living conditions. The second gave a small fraction of his immense wealth but helped many to enjoy an increase in material living standards.

      Who's sacrifice was greater? Who paid the higher price? Who's actions to a great extent touch that which is embedded in all our hearts?

    7. "...I believe love is beyond reason, though not unreasonable."



  6. "the world a spiritual prison vs. a world created in goodness"

    Um, what? First time I've ever heard someone claim that natural European religion saw the world as a "spiritual prison". Congrats with coming up with something new. And being FORCED to believe in Xtianity or be killed by the Catholic church was not a "spiritual prison", then. They even slaughtered tens of thousands of other Christians.

    "a world created in goodness" - False. Nowhere in Xtianity does it say that. The priests wouldn't wash, because that would show that they'd care about the material world, which was of the Devil. The world would soon be DESTROYED in an apocalypse, to "wash away sin". Yeah, sounds good, all right. All focus was on begging forgiveness for "sin" by being loyal to the Church. Priests said "a Christian only need one bath, baptism," and so they let the Pagan-built bathhouses fall in disrepair. The aqueducts broke, and the knowledge of how to make concrete was forgotten. Pagan society had been going steadily upward, but Rome's complex economy was destroyed because money was "dirty" - a reflection of the early Christians being freed slaves and servants, foreigners who hated Roman society and wanted to drag it down. Pulling the rooftops off temples, smashing idols, was part of that, as well as ignoring the complex Pagan economy and hygiene. Priests were proud of their stench.

    Constantinople sent missionaries to the Arabs and falsely claimed Rome had been built by Xtianity, not Pagans. The Arabs wanted the same, so they took the offered monotheism and made their own version, Islam. They could invade the Levant because the Xtian Constaninople had been oppressing other Xtians and Jews there, who therefore joined the Arabs, which was crucial support. And Constantinople had invaded Italy, emptying the cities, burning the farms, raping and murdering, because the Goths who brought peace to Italy didn't believe in the non-Biblical idea that Jesus was God, but instead said that he was the son of God like the Bible says. So the Xtian fanatics destroyed Italy and weakened the Mediterranean thereby, allowing the Muslims to conquer Africa, Sicly and Iberia later. Good job.

    Later the Xtians went around the world, forcing people in South America, Africa and elsewhere to either convert or die. Just like they had done in northern Europe earlier. They could only do that because of the wealth built by Pagan Rome, along with the Pagan-built roads, and armor, weapons, etc. And because of the wealth of the hot Mediterranean, of course. Xtians exploited all this to slaughter other Europeans in the tens of thousands.

    Later, Catholic Spain invaded Germany and killed two thirds of the population. Wonderful love! All around the world! And the priests STILL didn't wash themselves. That's a big part of why Japan rejected Christianity. The priests stank. The priests were proud of being dirty, rejecting the material world, while the Pagan Japanese were proud of being clean.

    1. The Romans destroyed their own society through military expansion, monetary inflation, and social decadence.

  7. The danger of Christian morality is the fact that Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that if they make another entity their Lord and Savior- somehow they will not face any consequences for harm or injury they have caused to others. This creates a tremendous moral hazard and incentives bad faith conduct.

    I can scientifically verify, as can anyone with this open experiment, that this is not the case. There will indeed be consequences for anyone who has harmed or violated the natural rights of another person (who is also God's child). The penalty becomes multiplied if any perpetrator claims to God that they didn't feel any need to pay that debt because some guy told them not to worry.

    In the North end of any legitimate masonic lodge on this planet is a chair bolted to the floor called "The Chair Of The Hidden Master". That is my chair, and The Sovereign Creator Of The Universe will only allow me to sit in it. If anyone wishes to test and verify my claim, please arrange a tour and attempt to sit in my chair, or even rest your hand upon it. God will indeed brush you aside. Pray to Jesus, or whatever god or gods you wish, and ask them to prove their dominion over The Sovereign Creator by allowing you to temporarily take my seat. Test it. Verify it. Repeat it. Don't run your mouths or deflect - prove it. God will not deceive you, for if He did, that would prove His corruption.

    When The Sovereign Creator scientifically confirms my claim to you - you'll understand how much trouble Christians are in if they don't make a good faith effort to make their victims whole and provide evidence of actual regret and repentance.

    You'll also understand why Isaiah 14:12-15 says "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" - and why Revelation 22:16 says "I, the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

    Lucifer is Allah, Ra, Enlil, Yahweh, The Lord, and many others. His real name is Rael-but you don't know that name because Revelation 19:12 states; "He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself."

    But, now you know, because I know. Don't stand before God thinking you get a free pass. Make sure there is evidence you actually repented and made a good faith effort to repair any harm you've committed. You don't want to learn that lesson the hard way, which is just what Lucifer wants you to do.

    Think about that.

    1. THM,

      "The danger of Christian morality is the fact that Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that if they make another entity their Lord and Savior- somehow they will not face any consequences for harm or injury they have caused to others."

      I don't think you understand the Christian balance between mercy and righteousness very well. Faith in Christ is not a blank check to do as you like knowing you'll be forgiven. Suffice it say that Jesus knows when people are trying to 'game' His system of forgiveness. I'm not going to speak to the rest of your comment, except to say that it was entertaining.

  8. "The danger of Christian morality is the fact that Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that if they make another entity their Lord and Savior- somehow they will not face any consequences for harm or injury they have caused to others. This creates a tremendous moral hazard and incentives bad faith conduct."

    This is a straight-forward claim. Where is the evidence for it? If something of this nature is so blatant, then it should be easy to provide verification. I will bet that the writer of this gobbledygook and confusion cannot and will not because it would end up being shredded by this blog's readers.

    "Lucifer is Allah, Ra, Enlil, Yahweh, The Lord, and many others. His real name is Rael-but you don't know that name because Revelation 19:12 states; "He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself."

    "But, now you know, because I know."

    More confusion. No one knows his real name, but it is Rael. I know it and now you know it because I told you, but Scripture says no one knows it. Hunnnh? If you want a lesson in logic, do not look to this guy as your teacher.

    We read the word, "know" and interpret that as "possessing understanding", but in this case it simply means that He has the Name and no one else will ever be able to claim it as their own. The Name is His and His alone. It is unique to Him. It is HOW he is "known".

    In Genesis 4:1, is says that Adam "knew" his wife, Eve, and she conceived and bore [children]. Adam and Eve had sexual relations. Adam "knew" his wife intimately. Because I have explained this to you, now you know.

    Get out! Does this guy think we are stupid?

    "You don't want to learn that lesson the hard way, which is just what Lucifer wants you to do."

    You have a lesson to learn and you want to learn it easily, but Lucifer, who also wants you to learn your lesson does not want you to learn it easily and will bend every effort to make sure you do not. Is this what that means?

    Or perhaps this is a warning that it is best for you not to learn your lesson in a hard manner, but Lucifer wants you to, which means that Lucifer does not have your best interests at heart. In fact, if he can make your learning difficult, he will do so, with the ultimate goal of making sure you learn your lesson.

    Well, shoot dang! We already know (have understanding) that Lucifer (Satan) does not want us to learn our lesson at all, whether easily or not. In fact, he wants us to remain ignorant of the Truth, Who is Jesus the Christ, the Wonderful Counselor and Prince of Peace, Almighty God, Faithful and True, Righteous Judge, Perfect Warrior against evil. Because we have knowledge of this Truth, we are free--free to "know" God spiritually in His most pure attributes, which is most decidedly what Lucifer desperately wants to keep us from.

    Who really gives a damn whether "the hidden master" (master of illogical thought and miscommunication, I'd say) has a chair or not? I prefer to sit at the feet of Jesus and actually learn something.

  9. Great post!

    It seems that the modern world wants to live out the Christian virtues but only selectively and always vicariously through the State. We have compassion for the poor among us, so we vote in the Welfare State and myriad regulations that ostensibly help those who are marginalized, oppressed, or somehow victimized by society. We want justice for those in other countries and safety for those around us so we support the troops in engaging in aggressive empire building abroad. Christian humility becomes State enforced tolerance of all anti-Christian behaviors and lifestyles. The Kingdom of God becomes a worldly Utopia to be shepherded into existence not by Jesus but by the State. And on and on.

    It's almost comical. We are reverting back into Pagan society, but it is requiring arguments steeped in the Christian worldview to get there (well that and the proliferation of the feel-good vices, sex chief among them). Abortion is no longer killing a baby but rather having compassion on the unwilling mother.

  10. Tex Libertarian says that he lost his faith through Christian compassion, that is, that no one should go to hell. I was much the same way. But now I am getting an inkling that is expedient that God get rid of these people . . . or they will get rid of Him.