Arguing with Christian morals

[Red Noob]

So I've recently come out of the Commie closet with my father, and I've been giving him a run for his money trying to turn him, or make him sympathize and understand, and get him out of the Cold War mentality. I've managed to get past the "It goes against human nature", "It only looks good on paper", and "It kills a worker's incentive". The problem is he tightly clings to his Christian beliefs, and openly admits to basing his morals on Christianity, and thinks a secular society lacks morals, and would ultimately lead to the collapse of such a society. How can I combat these statements without being disowned? :confused:

[hatzel]

If you're serious about this whole endeavour with your father, I would heartily recommend reading the various Christian socialists. People like Tolstoy, Jacques Ellul, Gustavo Gutiérrez. I admit I'm more clued up on Christian anarchism, but perhaps some of the articles and texts on Jesus Radicals (http://www.jesusradicals.com/) could prove enlightening (though not all of it would be to everybody's taste, what with the occasional forays into primitivism) - there's a lot of Ellul on there, for example.

I suggest this because I firmly believe in the importance of tailoring one's argument to the individual in question, and making sure you speak their language; if discussing the cause for statelessness with a Jew or Christian, I would cite the book of Samuel, for instance, whilst obviously I wouldn't if talking with an atheist. The writers mentioned (and others, of course) draw lines between socialism and Christian teachings, and as such their arguments may prove more convincing to Christians than non-Christian or even anti-Christian arguments may. There's no point giving a Christian a book that spends a couple of chapters attacking Christianity and expecting them to embrace socialism afterwards. Give a Christian a book which argues in favour of socialism from an explicitly Christian perspective, however, and you'll probably have a lot more luck.

[Nox]

Ask him why atheists don't go around murdering eachother.

If he can't answer that, his argument is invalid.

[Stork]

Ask him why atheists don't go around murdering eachother.

If he can't answer that, his argument is invalid.
Yes, and also point out that there are Christians that use the bible to justify behaviours he would deem unchristian or immoral. The KKK for example and Christian communists and anarchists. There are plenty of good Christians and the bible is basically good, but you don't need to be a Christian to accept that treating others as you would like to be treated is a good thing.

[Cencus]

What are usually called Christian morals are actually 18th/19th century enlightenment in origin. Don't help your arguement I know but it really annoys me when that mislabelling comes up.

[Red Noob]

If you're serious about this whole endeavour with your father, I would heartily recommend reading the various Christian socialists. People like Tolstoy, Jacques Ellul, Gustavo Gutiérrez. I admit I'm more clued up on Christian anarchism, but perhaps some of the articles and texts on had to remove link due to postcount could prove enlightening (though not all of it would be to everybody's taste, what with the occasional forays into primitivism) - there's a lot of Ellul on there, for example.

I suggest this because I firmly believe in the importance of tailoring one's argument to the individual in question, and making sure you speak their language; if discussing the cause for statelessness with a Jew or Christian, I would cite the book of Samuel, for instance, whilst obviously I wouldn't if talking with an atheist. The writers mentioned (and others, of course) draw lines between socialism and Christian teachings, and as such their arguments may prove more convincing to Christians than non-Christian or even anti-Christian arguments may. There's no point giving a Christian a book that spends a couple of chapters attacking Christianity and expecting them to embrace socialism afterwards. Give a Christian a book which argues in favour of socialism from an explicitly Christian perspective, however, and you'll probably have a lot more luck.

Thanks :thumbup1: that's primarily what I've been doing, comparing the goals and aims of a socialist/communist society to that of what Jesus preached, both sort of imply a brotherhood with man, equality, and acceptance. I will take a look into some of those books. Thanks, comrades.

[Mr. Natural]

I'm an atheist. Nonetheless, here's first Christians, Acts 2: 44-45: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

And don't forget that Jesus flayed the moneychangers from the temple. (They're back)

Then there are the Bolshevik-Machists Gorky and Lunacharsky who, heatedly opposed by Lenin, attempted to create a "proletarian religion." "The idea was to embrace all that was positive in traditional religion, that is, the sense of community and man's yearning for transcendence, without adhering to belief in God, the supernatural world, or the immortality of the soul." (Helena Sheehan, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science)

So, my fellow dirty commie rats, don't communists yearn for community and transcendence (revolution) as do Christians? There is much fertile ground to seed here--much untilled soil.

It's also true that much of what has become Christianity is violent, sexist, homophobic, passive, etc., etc. So we have to choose our spots for communing with Christians, but this must eventually be accomplished if there is to be social transformation/revolution.

My red-green best.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What are usually called Christian morals are actually 18th/19th century enlightenment in origin. Don't help your arguement I know but it really annoys me when that mislabelling comes up.

this times a million

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ask him why atheists don't go around murdering eachother.

If he can't answer that, his argument is invalid.

lol ideas affecting the base

[OHumanista]

Indeed, I am atheist and Christian Socialism is definitely not for me, but it's by far the best route to attract a devout christian to leftism. Plus like others said "christian values" as used in modern day are just a political tool. Then there is extensive data pointing out that agnostics and atheists are no more criminal than the rest of us. And you may as well point out that a secular society means merely accepting all religions (and lack of one) and giving them no edge to use against each other.

[thriller]

What type of Christian? Catholic Worker for the win! Look up some things on Dorthy Day, she was pretty rad.

[Franz Fanonipants]

How can I combat these statements without being disowned? :confused:

gently and patiently reiterate your points always. your dad might be wrong about communism, but think about all the shit you probably are wrong about as well. he's family and obviously doesn't know much about what you believe in. make conversing about politics and stuff something you do frequently and non-heatedly if you can. he might not ever agree with you 100% but that's not the point.

[Azraella]

One of the things I do when I discuss communism with Christians, is that I point out that communism is Christian charity cranked up to 11. That is the easiest way for any Christian to swallow what communism actually is. I have no idea what political views your dad has(I'm assuming conservative based on this information) but I'd also point out that Christian socialists and communists exist(my husband is coming to mind).

[Franz Fanonipants]

your dad is a protestant right?

also, i wouldn't go w/the christianity = communism argument. mostly cus its not true, but also because you don't want to equate communism to some sort of soft-handed "equality" in your discourse. it is very helpful to, if people are receptive, term marxism as a tool for critiquing and understanding capitalism and more importantly the social relationships present in capitalism between laborers, labor, and capital. teaching communism as "ITS JUST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH" or whatever harms our arguments as basically it makes most conservative american ideas of "socialism" and etc. true. and they patently aren't.

[Red Rabbit]

"Jesus was a Communist"

[Revolutionair]

lol ideas affecting the base

lol fulgar materialism

[TheCuriousJournalist]

When your dad says a secular society lacks morals, I think he is ultimately hinting at the fact that he believes non-religious people lack morals. You need to overcome this issue first before you can move on to anything else. In terms of how to do so, certainly start by using yourself as an example.

Also, you need to focus your critique of religion on organized religion itself, and perhaps not a belief in god. So don't attack your dad for believing in god, but do point out some of the flaws in organized religion like their tendency to go against their own word. If you can do this successfully you can accomplish 2 important things: 1)Convince your dad that people can be good without religion 2)Convince him that he is a good man not because he follows his religion, but because of something within himself

Once these two are done, everything else should come much easier.

[Inner Peace]

ah religion people are stupid anyway leave them alone this is the best think you can do. Or ignore them

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol fulgar materialism

you dummy that isn't vulgar materialism.

[TheCuriousJournalist]

ah religion people are stupid anyway leave them alone this is the best think you can do. Or ignore them

You realize how many people on the earth are religious right?
Ignoring them all = No chance for change.
Not to mention that the man in question is the guy's dad lmao..

[DarkPast]

Sometimes it's nice to have a good quote or two handy:

Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."
-George Lansbury

[Franz Fanonipants]

ah religion people are stupid anyway leave them alone this is the best think you can do. Or ignore them

the best way to connect w/the working class

[Thirsty Crow]

So I've recently come out of the Commie closet with my father, and I've been giving him a run for his money trying to turn him, or make him sympathize and understand, and get him out of the Cold War mentality. I've managed to get past the "It goes against human nature", "It only looks good on paper", and "It kills a worker's incentive". The problem is he tightly clings to his Christian beliefs, and openly admits to basing his morals on Christianity, and thinks a secular society lacks morals, and would ultimately lead to the collapse of such a society. How can I combat these statements without being disowned? :confused:
Capitalist societies are secular par exellance. That's a very simple fact. Yet their secular character did not lead to collapse.

And one thing to mention is that morality has no source in a transcendent being, which can be proved by merely pointing out that there are atheists who are moral people. The biggest mistake here is to think that there needs to be a transcendent Being to secure the existence of human morality, which is basically an more or less concscious system of rules for intersubjective behaviour.

[piet11111]

Point out how christian morality shifted throughout the ages to accommodate all kinds of nasty stuff

slave ownership
Genocide of people of different faiths (crusades and the conquest of the america's)
murder of homosexuals and adulterers
domestic violence against women and children (remember the whole he who loves his children spare them not the rod ?)
and so much more that i cant be bothered to list now.

And that a lot of christians use the whole jezus died for our sins as a get out of hell free card through lame confession and 3 hail mary's then go out and sin some more.

[Franz Fanonipants]

And that a lot of christians use the whole jezus died for our sins as a get out of hell free card through lame confession and 3 hail mary's then go out and sin some more.

he's probably a protestant, so you and he are a lot closer on this than you would think. but that would require a hpg person to actually do something other than masturbate furiously to the nerd rapture.

[black magick hustla]

the best way to connect w/the working class

u dont have to talk about god to connect with ppl

[Franz Fanonipants]

u dont have to talk about god to connect with ppl

no you don't, you're right

[ВАЛТЕР]

Ask him why atheists don't go around murdering eachother.

If he can't answer that, his argument is invalid.

We don't do that? That's the only reason I am an atheist! WTF!

Anyways, people weren't massacring each other prior to when Christianity showed up. I mean, the Greeks had an amazing civilization and they weren't Christians. As did the Egyptians, Romans, etc. Sure they were imperialist, as are many "Christian" nations, but the individuals weren't lacking morals. They weren't stabbing each other dead in the streets and robbing each other blind.

Religion doesn't equal moral fiber. The Spanish inquisition is proof of that.

[NewLeft]

I never realized that parents cared?

I mean if I told my mom that I was a far left socialist and atheist.. she would be like.. umm. oook, whatever you say dear.

[Azraella]

I never realized that parents cared?

I mean if I told my mom that I was a far left socialist and atheist.. she would be like.. umm. oook, whatever you say dear.

My parents know that I'm an anarchist.

They think I take this revolution thing too seriously.

>.>

My husband's parents on the other hand don't understand why their son is a devout Christian and a passionate anarchist. Ze violently opposes right wing politics and religiosity.

[thefinalmarch]

u dont have to talk about god to connect with ppl
You don't have to regard them as "stupid" and proceed to "leave them alone" as Inner Peace suggested, either. The vast majority of the working class is religious, so I'm not sure what good alienating the religious would do.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I'm a christian communist (not as in that's my tendency, i'm just stating that I am both). It's got nothing against christianity. Earlier a good point was made. Communism is christian charity cranked up to 11. Make him read acts 4:32-6. It's like it's out of the communist manifesto :cool:

Also, Jesus was a communist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm a christian communist (not as in that's my tendency, i'm just stating that I am both). It's got nothing against christianity. Earlier a good point was made. Communism is christian charity cranked up to 11. Make him read acts 4:32-6. It's like it's out of the communist manifesto :cool:

Also, Jesus was a communist.

look comrade, I'm a christian communist too, but labeling christ a communist is problematic for the very reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Comrade Samuel]

Ask him which has a higher death toll throughout history, religion or communism? I've had all sorts of arguments with a close member of my family about this but you have it easier than me my person is borderline mentally Ill whereas your father seems to be pretty level headed and just trying to be a good person.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ask him which has a higher death toll throughout history, religion or communism?

do not do this shit.

this is the best way to put communism and whatever your father believes in into conflict. and it will make your father feel like you think he's dumb.

a better answer would be to ask him which has a higher death toll, capitalism or christianity. but you know.

(here's a hint guys its capitalism i know you all have problem parsing the whole ideas do not kill people thing in marxism)

[Stork]

Ask him to use Christian morality to justify his Capitalist views, what would Jesus think of the disparity of wealth? Would he approve of those who labour to provide for a pittance hold none of the means of production they operate and the bosses taking the profits?

[Drowzy_Shooter]

look comrade, I'm a christian communist too, but labeling christ a communist is problematic for the very reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.


obviously he wasn't a communist and it's simply an overblown example to shed some light on the situation. The communist manifesto wasn't even written at that time. And jesus was rather apathetic politically. I so don't really think he gave a crap if you or I are communists or not.

[Azraella]

obviously he wasn't a communist and it's simply an overblown example to shed some light on the situation. The communist manifesto wasn't even written at that time. And jesus was rather apathetic politically. I so don't really think he gave a crap if you or I are communists or not.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

I find it really disingenous to discuss historical socio-political systems in modern parlance. We'll take an example that I am really familiar with: Medieval Iceland. I have seen it discussed as anarchist, right-libertarian, and anarcho-capitalist. None of these are correct. In fact I think it's hard to categorize what my ancestors thought and believed politically because a) the situation on the continent may have been different that the one ion Scandinavia or Anglo-Saxon society and b) the time stretch is very big. Tribes in the 3rd century ac may have thought quite differently that 500 years before, and even three hundred years afterwards (and the German tribes shortly before the christianization were quite into hierarchies, believe me). Also, because our worldviews are dependant on the society we live in (our modern society) we might not be able to even try to think like our ancestors did because their world was completely different from ours. Even gifted historians admit that the hardest thing to learn is the 'historic attitude' meaning you need to strip down your modern views in order to try to understand the past. Which is not easy.

Aside from the politics, it is in itself, a very interesting topic, because on one hand, in something like the Icelandic Free State, you had laws and social obligations that emphasised personal responsibility (such as having to have a certain amount of wealth before marrying, having to pay what was essentially child support to any children you fathered and state castration of itinerant beggers to prevent them from fathering any children that they couldn't support), on the other hand, in the regional councils, assigned the local homeless to farmsteads that they could shelter at in the winter time so that they wouldn't die. They would do stints of a certain period before moving to the next assigned one so as not to make too much of a dent in the winter stores of each farmstead.

They certainly weren't capitalists because capitalism is a more recent concept and I think it would be difficult to understand their attitudes regarding the means of production and private property based from the lore. There is a good chance that economically they were flexible and were similar to mutualists dashed in with agorism(to put it in modern terms). They were certainly hierarchical which isn't anarchist but I claim that their ethics and worldview is essentially anarchist or at least very compatible with anarchist principles.

Heathenry runs on two axises the individual and the community/family and social anarchism is best described as ridding of that dichotomy. While Heathenry does rely on individual responsibility and anarchism relies on collective responsibility which I think is a totally false contradiction, It becomes painfully obvious that there was some sort of idea that even lords had obligations to the average person which means that while the Norse were hierarchical everyone certainly had responsibilities.

Everyone can draw different conclusions from the historical record and it is tainted with bias. When it comes to interpreting lore... I come to conclusions that are like liberation and process theology from Christianity*. Again bias, which is pretty consistent with everyone when reading old texts. A big part of why I am who I am is based on how I interpret the lore, I'm a vegan due to heathen animist beliefs, I draw anarchist conclusions from the Havamal, and so forth. It's bias and huge part why I don't consider myself a reconstructionist or rather why I think it's disingenuous to call yourself a reconstructionist given that human bias is bound to pervade your interpretations of the lore.

This isn't to say that reconstructing elements of the religion are wrong because some of it is objective like blots and sumbel but other things like theology and ethics are definitely subjective or at least open to bias to what conclusions that people take them to.

Is it bad? Probably not, most religions have these sort of quibbles and since Asatru is being reborn... it's definitely a huge feature of the religion.

Jesus is the same way. It is difficult to easily catergorize historical societies or people in modern political parlance.

*It's probably bias from my roots as an UU Christian

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm a christian communist (not as in that's my tendency, i'm just stating that I am both). It's got nothing against christianity. Earlier a good point was made. Communism is christian charity cranked up to 11. Make him read acts 4:32-6. It's like it's out of the communist manifesto :cool:

Also, Jesus was a communist.
What is christian charity?

[dodger]

what is christian charity?


cold as a nun's tit.....!!!

[Azraella]

What is christian charity?


What could be a double edged sword to be honest[1][2][3]. The biggest indicator to charitable behavior is religiosity however that also comes at a cost. At least for the mainstream versions of these faiths. I think most orhtodox versions of the big 3 religions are destrutive to indivduals. On the other hand many progressive versions of these religions are coming about that reject the destructive potential in religiosity. This is a good thing in my opinion. There has to be balance. Progressive attitudes are not incompatible with faith and in fact bigots will be bigots regardless of faith or lack of it.


1. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/?tag=content;col1

2. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

3. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians

(Note: I am not saying atheists can't be charitable like Christians or other religious types are, but it's simply a trend that has been observed)

[El Chuncho]

and the German tribes shortly before the christianization were quite into hierarchies, believe me

Though they did have elected kings. Usually they were drawn from the ''aristocracy'' (a loose word to use for tribes in the Proto-Germanic era), often the 'king's son, but it was a start. Unlike ancient Rome. Probably why William Morris was drawn to the society of ancient Germanic peoples (whom he called ''Goths'', a common convention at the time), and the direct influence for his book 'A Tale of the House of the Wolfings, and All the Kindreds of the Mark Written in Prose and in Verse' and the sequel 'The Roots of the Mountains'. His novel is right about many thinks in the society of the term even if the society of the men of Burgdales is more idyllic and modern than it really was; it is also a work of philosophy as William Morris favoured an agrarian-socialist society because he was both a strong socialist and naturalist; and influenced by socialists and naturalists throughout the Western world.

Anyway, I am going off topic.


They weren't stabbing each other dead in the streets and robbing each other blind.

I think Julius Caesar would probably disagree with you. Christianity may have cause more problems in Europe than any other religion, but the religions of Europe were not exactly successful at eliminating murder or violence!

I am not a big fan of Christianity but I am not going to blame them for murders in Europe.

[Elysian]

Pagan Europe was barbaric, no morals. Christianity changed all that.

[roy]

Pagan Europe was barbaric, no morals. Christianity changed all that.

What do you define as "barbaric"? There were still plenty of "barbaric" things going on in Europe even after the introduction of Christianity. Much of this was done in the name of Christianity, even if only to justify political manoeuvres and the like.

And what makes your decidedly Christian morals better than the values espoused by the various pagan belief systems?

I really hate to sound like I'm jumping on the anti-Christian bandwagon, but yours seems an absurd statement.

[Azraella]

Pagan Europe was barbaric, no morals. Christianity changed all that.


What? I'm not an anti-Christian(my husband is Christian for one) and this is total bullshit. Pagan philosophy is filled with discussions on virtue. Hell, the Havamal was all about heathen morality which boils down to don't drink too much, don't speak too much, and don't be a douchebag.

[anarchoash]

Respect his views and if he's a true Christian he'll respect your's. I live with my mother and she's a Christian, obviously we don't always see eye to eye which sometimes leads to a debate but we get on fine cos although I don't agree with everything she says I respect her right to think that

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think Julius Caesar would probably disagree with you. Christianity may have cause more problems in Europe than any other religion, but the religions of Europe were not exactly successful at eliminating murder or violence!

I am not a big fan of Christianity but I am not going to blame them for murders in Europe.

Yeah, there were always murders and whatnot, and most likely always will be. However, I meant that people weren't just going around killing and maiming each other just for the hell of it. There was some kind of order and knowledge that it was "wrong" to murder, steal, etc.

[danyboy27]

The best way i think to sell the idea of secularism to religious people is to argues that, its probably the only way for people from different faith to keep practicing their religion freely.

Secularism allow to the people who want it to practice their faith, and the only way it can do that is by keeping religious out of politics, by playing the impartial referee.

Allowing Religion in politics mean those of different faith can do it too, it mean living in an impossible world where not belonging to a particular faith or having a weird name can get you killed if you goes in the wrong neigborhood, it mean a governement unable to function beccause of the internal religious clashes within its structure.

I bet you a dollars this kind of explation will be more than enough to convince him.

[Elysian]

What do you define as "barbaric"? There were still plenty of "barbaric" things going on in Europe even after the introduction of Christianity. Much of this was done in the name of Christianity, even if only to justify political manoeuvres and the like.

And what makes your decidedly Christian morals better than the values espoused by the various pagan belief systems?

I really hate to sound like I'm jumping on the anti-Christian bandwagon, but yours seems an absurd statement.

Pagan morality was more like relativism than actual morality. Which is why you often see barbaric activities being justified in pagan societies. In Christian theology, such behavior would be considered immoral in absolute terms. No relativism. That's the difference.

[danyboy27]

Pagan morality was more like relativism than actual morality. Which is why you often see barbaric activities being justified in pagan societies. In Christian theology, such behavior would be considered immoral in absolute terms. No relativism. That's the difference.

The crusades killed a shitload of peoples, the spanish inquisition killed also its fair share of folks, not to mention all the war and massacre the popes financed with their treasury.

different morality, different attrocities.

[Elysian]

The crusades killed a shitload of peoples, the spanish inquisition killed also its fair share of folks, not to mention all the war and massacre the popes financed with their treasury.

different morality, different attrocities.

A Christian is called to be like Christ, so activities like the ones you have mentioned are unChristian. Otoh, nonChristisns are not called to be like any righteous person, in fact, they dont have one figure like Christ but many, many gods. So a pagan can be immoral and still be pagan, but a Christian cannot go againt Christ and still be Christian.

Hope this clarifies things.

[Ostrinski]

What could be a double edged sword to be honest[1][2][3]. The biggest indicator to charitable behavior is religiosity however that also comes at a cost. At least for the mainstream versions of these faiths. I think most orhtodox versions of the big 3 religions are destrutive to indivduals. On the other hand many progressive versions of these religions are coming about that reject the destructive potential in religiosity. This is a good thing in my opinion. There has to be balance. Progressive attitudes are not incompatible with faith and in fact bigots will be bigots regardless of faith or lack of it.


1. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/?tag=content;col1

2. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

3. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians

(Note: I am not saying atheists can't be charitable like Christians or other religious types are, but it's simply a trend that has been observed)Yeah, but then you'd have to qualify why we should give a fuck about charity. I'm just as if not more charitable than most of the religious folk around here but it's irrelevant.

[Ostrinski]

One of the things I do when I discuss communism with Christians, is that I point out that communism is Christian charity cranked up to 11. That is the easiest way for any Christian to swallow what communism actually is. I have no idea what political views your dad has(I'm assuming conservative based on this information) but I'd also point out that Christian socialists and communists exist(my husband is coming to mind).No it's not. What the fuck?

[danyboy27]

A Christian is called to be like Christ, so activities like the ones you have mentioned are unChristian. Otoh, nonChristisns are not called to be like any righteous person, in fact, they dont have one figure like Christ but many, many gods. So a pagan can be immoral and still be pagan, but a Christian cannot go againt Christ and still be Christian.

Hope this clarifies things.
Do you really think all the christian base their faith on the new testament?
From my personnal experience, there are many christian who still believe a lot in what was written in the old one.

On another note, what is your opinion on abortion?

[hatzel]

There's no point arguing with Elysian because s_he is very obviously a Christian chauvinist preacher...

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually El, many sects of hinduism call for their members to be like Krishna. My good friend Swami Shantanand even preaches that we are all already gods, composed of the Krishna consciousness, and only have to realize it. Furthermore, it is an elitist political tactic to raise these people (Krishna, Christ, Buddha) to such status' so that the common person doesn't believe he/she is capable of greatness.

On another note; most brands of christianity preach that you have to be nothing like Christ, and cannot achieve such perfection in our wildest dreams. The most common belief in christianity is that grace comes through faith, not good works.

[roy]

Pagan morality was more like relativism than actual morality. Which is why you often see barbaric activities being justified in pagan societies. In Christian theology, such behavior would be considered immoral in absolute terms. No relativism. That's the difference.

But barbarism was justified in Christian societies too... Some would argue it continues to be. However, "barbarism" is a very vague term so let's not caught in a semantics argument.

Just because Christianity has a moral framework doesn't mean it can't be manipulated. Christianity does not automatically equal good. People of any religion can be civilised and peaceful, just as they can be cruel and "barbaric".

Was witch-burning considered immoral? Was the subjugation of women considered immoral? Was slavery considered immoral? Were the crusades considered immoral?

Perhaps these examples are not barbaric enough for you...

[manic expression]

Pagan morality was more like relativism than actual morality. Which is why you often see barbaric activities being justified in pagan societies. In Christian theology, such behavior would be considered immoral in absolute terms. No relativism. That's the difference.
A great deal of Christian theology comes directly from pagan philosophers. Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas incorporated pagan writings into Christian teachings. Simply put, if you want to criticize "pagan morality", you're criticizing a large basis of official Christian doctrine.

Next, Christian morality is relative. For example, I presume that you don't support putting someone to death for wearing a garment made of two different threads, which is what the Bible mandates. This isn't a bad thing...religions adapt, it's just how it works.

As for "pagan morality", that's really a false concept: the moral codes of pagans depended primarily upon their society and their place in it. You can't honestly say that the moral codes of Old Kingdom Egyptians and Republic-era Romans matched because they very obviously didn't. Further, I have no idea where you're getting this idea of "barbaric activities" of pagans...the Christians that followed them were no less "barbaric", if anything they had less scruples. It's more a question of societal organization than what beliefs that society holds, but if you want to compare "barbarity" between pagan and Christian conquerors then you aren't going to make Christianity look good.

[El Chuncho]

Pagan Europe was barbaric, no morals. Christianity changed all that.

Bullshit. Many pagan countries had better laws regarding homosexuals, the peasantry and elected kingships. They also usually had a better code of morals in which people had to be good rather than in Christianity where you only have to believe in Jesus to be saved.

Ponder this. Pagan societies usually tolerated many religions - case in point, in heathen Iceland you could be a Christian or a heathen. In Rome, most foreign deities were seen as aspects of the same gods that the Romans worshiped. They didn't force Jews to accept that rule, respecting the fact that they were monotheistic.

I have a sneaky suspicion that you are also a right, Christian troll just trying to cause trouble.

[Beorc]

So I've recently come out of the Commie closet with my father, and I've been giving him a run for his money trying to turn him, or make him sympathize and understand, and get him out of the Cold War mentality. I've managed to get past the "It goes against human nature", "It only looks good on paper", and "It kills a worker's incentive". The problem is he tightly clings to his Christian beliefs, and openly admits to basing his morals on Christianity, and thinks a secular society lacks morals, and would ultimately lead to the collapse of such a society. How can I combat these statements without being disowned? :confused:

"One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
-Mark 10:21-25

42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.
-Matthew 25:42-46

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
-James 2:1-7

There's a few quotes for him. Jesus was a socialist at heart.

[runequester]

Bullshit. Many pagan countries had better laws regarding homosexuals, the peasantry and elected kingships. They also usually had a better code of morals in which people had to be good rather than in Christianity where you only have to believe in Jesus to be saved.

Ponder this. Pagan societies usually tolerated many religions - case in point, in heathen Iceland you could be a Christian or a heathen. In Rome, most foreign deities were seen as aspects of the same gods that the Romans worshiped. They didn't force Jews to accept that rule, respecting the fact that they were monotheistic.

I have a sneaky suspicion that you are also a right, Christian troll just trying to cause trouble.

I don't have any text to back this up, but it always made reasonable sense to me that in a polytheistic society, acceptance of someone else's gods wouldn't be as big of a deal, because you were already accepting multiple gods in any event. Adding a few more isn't likely to be as big of a deal, and given the relative similarity of many myths (see f.x. Campbells texts about the monomyth) you can easily accept a slightly different version.