Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

[BluePhantom]

Sigh......do I really want to get into this? Oh what the hell. I will try to be brief.

A common criticism by atheists is that Christians only attempt to engage in moral behavior because of the fear of eternal punishment in hell. Thus, they argue, Christian morality is centered in spiritual self-preservation instead of a pure place of free choice. While this is commonly the case, and was certainly propagated by the Church during the Middle Ages, it's not actually what the Bible teaches. To understand, we must have a look at Paul starting with the concept of 'grace'.

Grace, very simply, is a gift that has been given without being earned. The grace of God is forgiveness for all sin according to the sacrifice of Jesus. Obedience to the Law and good works (let's refer to this as 'morality' for the sake of this discussion) do not bring one closer to righteousness. Indeed, righteousness cannot be obtained since all people are sinners and no one follows the Law in its entirety. (see Rom. 3:9-12, Rom. 4:24-25) Moral behavior, therefore, cannot gain righteousness or else forgiveness will have been earned. This violates the concept of grace; that of a free gift that has not been earned, and renders the sacrifice of Jesus irrelevant. (see Gal. 2:21)

However, when one lives within grace one will naturally engage in moral behavior because God is working within and through them. (see Rom. 6:15-18, 1 Cor. 15:10) Thus, morality is not embraced from a place of fear, spiritual self-preservation, or earning favor with God. It comes because God is revealing Himself within them and this is reflected in one's genuine inner nature which has been inspired toward righteousness through grace.

That's about as quick and to the point as I can make it. Thus, Christian morality, when one follows the Bible at least, is for the sake or morality itself and a genuine love of mankind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some far right Christians preach the fear of hell all the time, BP. You know it, I know it, and the atheists know it. I wish we could get those heretics to realize they are not teaching correct doctrine.

 

[BluePhantom]

Some far right Christians preach the fear of hell all the time, BP. You know it, I know it, and the atheists know it. I wish we could get those heretics to realize they are not teaching correct doctrine.

Yep...they are completely missing the point.

 

[BluePhantom]

Some far right Christians preach the fear of hell all the time, BP. You know it, I know it, and the atheists know it. I wish we could get those heretics to realize they are not teaching correct doctrine.

The reality is that those who preach hell, not only miss they point, they actually reinforce atheist criticism. If that is the only reason why someone behaves morally, then damn right it's spiritual self-preservation and attempting to earn goodies from God. That means their moral behavior is not coming from a pure place and a true love of mankind, thus it is worthless...at least according to Paul....and this is one of those times when I would agree with Paul. They are not bestowing grace upon mankind through the love of God but due to an expected return...it is not freely given from within themselves, thus it is not grace.

 

[BreezeWood]

Indeed, righteousness cannot be obtained since all people are sinners and no one follows the Law in its entirety.

.
and not being a sinner does not make one righteous, just not a christian ... what the religion really says about righteousness.


Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

the mere fact christians are sinners is the Fear based Motivation ...

.

 

[BluePhantom]

Indeed, righteousness cannot be obtained since all people are sinners and no one follows the Law in its entirety.

.
and not being a sinner does not make one righteous, just not a christian ... what the religion really says about righteousness.


Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

the mere fact christians are sinners is the Fear based Motivation ...

.

Ok well first let me clarify. We are talking according to Paul in the OP and more according to me in post #4. I am going to try to answer according to Paul and not me since that is what you quoted.

According to Paul: being a Christian has nothing to do with sin as all people sin whether they are Christian or not. Being Christian means accepting the grace of God. In other words, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus in payment for sin. Therefore, righteousness can only be achieved through grace and love. Sin is not acceptable, but it is inevitable. Consider the following:

"15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin,which leads to death,or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin,you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." (Rom. 6:15-18, NIV)

 

[BluePhantom]

Indeed, righteousness cannot be obtained since all people are sinners and no one follows the Law in its entirety.

.
and not being a sinner does not make one righteous, just not a christian ... what the religion really says about righteousness.


Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

the mere fact christians are sinners is the Fear based Motivation ...

.

Ok well first let me clarify. We are talking according to Paul in the OP and more according to me in post #4. I am going to try to answer according to Paul and not me since that is what you quoted.

According to Paul: being a Christian has nothing to do with sin as all people sin whether they are Christian or not. Being Christian means accepting the grace of God. In other words, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus in payment for sin. Therefore, righteousness can only be achieved through grace and love. Sin is not acceptable, but it is inevitable. Consider the following:

"15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin,which leads to death,or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin,you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." (Rom. 6:15-18, NIV)

Just a quick follow up here. Paul writes in the section I quoted above "...whether you are slaves to sin,which leads to death,or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?" It's necessary to clarify what Paul means by 'death' in his letters. We think of death as...well...death. Being dead. Having no life. That's not how Paul used the term. Death was the state of living outside of grace. There was no true death because death (as we think of it) had been defeated by the resurrection of Christ. Therefore there was only eternal life, which Paul referred to as "life" or "light" which was assured by grace, and 'death', that being living outside of a state of grace. It didn't mean you were dead (as we think of it), or condemned to hell, or anything like that. It meant you were spiritually barren. That is not fear based in the sense of threatening damnation for disobedience. It is simply to say that if one refuses the gift of grace, they will be spiritually empty.

 

[amrchaos]

There are two promises made by Christianity:fear and hope.

The two promises are equal in creditability.
Neither are justifications for joining the religion.

Most people focus on the fear since it shock the senses, some automatically grab for the hope as a remedy to the potential terror.

However, I see the two promises as a desperate attempt by the religion to garner members. For without these promises, why would Christianity even exists? Its advice on living is not always practical, and many of the claims of what the faithful can do are false and dangerous.

So dangerous, that they hide behind a claim that to test their faith is to test God. I have yet to find the Biblical reason why one should not test 'God' in this way. If anything, such tests should be encouraged, since it not only gives validity to the faith, but separates the true believers from the frauds.

 

[HUGGY]

Sadly none of these "back door" to eternity bible thumpers have come back to tell the world how well hypocrisy has worked for them in getting into heaven. The area of the universe that houses the souls of these successful Christians must be a lot smaller than we have been led to believe. From the look of it very rarely does someone live a life so perfectly that it is obvious that god is operating these automatons. So for the vast majority of them there actually is nothing more waiting after death than for the atheists.

Ain't THAT a bitch!

 

[Meriweather]

There are two promises made by Christianity:fear and hope.

However, I see the two promises as a desperate attempt by the religion to garner members. For without these promises, why would Christianity even exists? Its advice on living is not always practical, and many of the claims of what the faithful can do are false and dangerous.

The promises of Christianity are love and forgiveness, a way of living this life with the hope (meaning expectation) that the yoke is easy and the burden is light. Slavery to sin is the harder, heavier burden which is kind of an irony because so often sin seems to be the easier way.

I am not sure what claims you feel are false and dangerous, so I cannot comment on that. If you mean faith healing instead of seeing a doctor, we probably agree; if you mean something else, we may or may not.

So dangerous, that they hide behind a claim that to test their faith is to test God. I have yet to find the Biblical reason why one should not test 'God' in this way. If anything, such tests should be encouraged, since it not only gives validity to the faith, but separates the true believers from the frauds.

Major denominations (the greater majority of the faithful) make no claim that to test faith is to test God. These are two separate issues, and most people expect tests of faith. Testing God (give us a sign that you exist) is what we are warned against doing. Instead of testing God we are called to seek Him.

Saying there is a "desperate attempt" for religion to gather members is like saying PE classes are a "desperate attempt" by professional sports to gather players and fans. Both Church and Sports exist because the interest of many is already there.

 

[amrchaos]

There are two promises made by Christianity:fear and hope.

However, I see the two promises as a desperate attempt by the religion to garner members. For without these promises, why would Christianity even exists? Its advice on living is not always practical, and many of the claims of what the faithful can do are false and dangerous.

The promises of Christianity are love and forgiveness, a way of living this life with the hope (meaning expectation) that the yoke is easy and the burden is light. Slavery to sin is the harder, heavier burden which is kind of an irony because so often sin seems to be the easier way.

I am not sure what claims you feel are false and dangerous, so I cannot comment on that. If you mean faith healing instead of seeing a doctor, we probably agree; if you mean something else, we may or may not.

So dangerous, that they hide behind a claim that to test their faith is to test God. I have yet to find the Biblical reason why one should not test 'God' in this way. If anything, such tests should be encouraged, since it not only gives validity to the faith, but separates the true believers from the frauds.

Major denominations (the greater majority of the faithful) make no claim that to test faith is to test God. These are two separate issues, and most people expect tests of faith. Testing God (give us a sign that you exist) is what we are warned against doing. Instead of testing God we are called to seek Him.

Saying there is a "desperate attempt" for religion to gather members is like saying PE classes are a "desperate attempt" by professional sports to gather players and fans. Both Church and Sports exist because the interest of many is already there.

Love and forgiveness are part of the promise for hope-If you believe

The claims in Mark that claims the believer can handle poisonous snakes and drink deadly poisons are some of the dangerous claims made by Christianity.

The offer of PE classes do not come with threats, unless the school requires the passing of such course is a pre-requisite for graduation. However, Cults use threats and promises to garner membership.

Note: Religion is not Church. Yes, people have interest in religion. But each religion is different. Christianity is just one of many. I am talking about the tactics of Christianity, not every religion.

 

[Meriweather]

Love and forgiveness are part of the promise for hope-If you believe

The claims in Mark that claims the believer can handle poisonous snakes and drink deadly poisons are some of the dangerous claims made by Christianity.

Some do take picturesque language literally. Others take it as it is intended, that Christian living gives one the way and the grace to work through life's challenges.

The offer of PE classes do not come with threats, unless the school requires the passing of such course is a pre-requisite for graduation. However, Cults use threats and promises to garner membership.

Yes, PE is a requirement. Some Christian denominations may use threats and promises. The major ones do not.

Note: Religion is not Church. Yes, people have interest in religion. But each religion is different. Christianity is just one of many. I am talking about the tactics of Christianity, not every religion.

In Catholicism, "Church" encompasses everything.

Also, finding a small portion of Christianity who does things one way, and then broad brushing the entire faith with the thoughts of these few isn't an accurate presentation.

 

[amrchaos]

Love and forgiveness are part of the promise for hope-If you believe

The claims in Mark that claims the believer can handle poisonous snakes and drink deadly poisons are some of the dangerous claims made by Christianity.

Some do take picturesque language literally. Others take it as it is intended, that Christian living gives one the way and the grace to work through life's challenges.

The offer of PE classes do not come with threats, unless the school requires the passing of such course is a pre-requisite for graduation. However, Cults use threats and promises to garner membership.

Yes, PE is a requirement. Some Christian denominations may use threats and promises. The major ones do not.

Note: Religion is not Church. Yes, people have interest in religion. But each religion is different. Christianity is just one of many. I am talking about the tactics of Christianity, not every religion.

In Catholicism, "Church" encompasses everything.

Also, finding a small portion of Christianity who does things one way, and then broad brushing the entire faith with the thoughts of these few isn't an accurate presentation.

Wait--the terms I am using to describe Christianity comes from the NT.

If there are denominations of Christianity, that rejects/ignore certain concepts from the NT(such as Marks claim for believers), then can we really call it Christianity?

I guess if the claims are 'minor', you could. But wouldn't that make the divisions between differing religions a bit nebulous?

Well, if there is a denomination that rejects hell, or rejects Mark's claim for believers, or some other peculiar parts, then I will say that I am not talking about those denominations.

However, I seriously doubt these denomination can claim to follow the NT faithfully when they reject claims and concepts from the NT.

 

[BreezeWood]

Indeed, righteousness cannot be obtained since all people are sinners and no one follows the Law in its entirety.

.
and not being a sinner does not make one righteous, just not a christian ... what the religion really says about righteousness.


Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

the mere fact christians are sinners is the Fear based Motivation ...

.

Ok well first let me clarify. We are talking according to Paul in the OP and more according to me in post #4. I am going to try to answer according to Paul and not me since that is what you quoted.

According to Paul: being a Christian has nothing to do with sin as all people sin whether they are Christian or not. Being Christian means accepting the grace of God. In other words, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus in payment for sin. Therefore, righteousness can only be achieved through grace and love. Sin is not acceptable, but it is inevitable. Consider the following:

"15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin,which leads to death,or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin,you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." (Rom. 6:15-18, NIV)

.
who's Paul

you refute the Commandment of the Almighty, the Parable of Noah, become sinless or perish, the religion of God for "All" humanity ?

.

 

[Meriweather]

Wait--the terms I am using to describe Christianity comes from the NT.

No. The claim comes from your interpretation of the New Testament--and cherry picked verses at that.

If there are denominations of Christianity, that rejects/ignore certain concepts from the NT(such as Marks claim for believers), then can we really call it Christianity?

Again, there are certainly denominations that reject your interpretation of certain verses. This is a rejection of your interpretation, not a rejection of Christianity.

I guess if the claims are 'minor', you could. But wouldn't that make the divisions between differing religions a bit nebulous?

Well, if there is a denomination that rejects hell, or rejects Mark's claim for believers, or some other peculiar parts, then I will say that I am not talking about those denominations.

However, I seriously doubt these denomination can claim to follow the NT faithfully when they reject claims and concepts from the NT.

I don't know of any denominations that rejects hell, or even the idea that there were instances Christians survived snake bites and/or poison. This is different from Christians inviting snake bites or deliberately drinking poison. Context matters, and it matters a lot. So does interpretation. Some denominations preach that non-Christians (and even other Christian denominations) are automatically condemned to hell.

Other denominations do not kick these people with their interpretations to the wayside. We do try to inform people that the interpretations of a few are not the interpretations of the many.

 

[BluePhantom]

There are two promises made by Christianity:fear and hope.

The two promises are equal in creditability.
Neither are justifications for joining the religion.

Most people focus on the fear since it shock the senses, some automatically grab for the hope as a remedy to the potential terror.

However, I see the two promises as a desperate attempt by the religion to garner members. For without these promises, why would Christianity even exists? Its advice on living is not always practical, and many of the claims of what the faithful can do are false and dangerous.

So dangerous, that they hide behind a claim that to test their faith is to test God. I have yet to find the Biblical reason why one should not test 'God' in this way. If anything, such tests should be encouraged, since it not only gives validity to the faith, but separates the true believers from the frauds.

It is regrettable that fear became part of the religion as that is not what scripture tells us. That came mostly from the Church in the Middle Ages trying to get the peasants to act the way they wanted them to. They corrupted the message which is exactly why the Church went through the Protestant Reformation.

I am not trying to argue that fear does not exist within Christianity. Of course it does. I am arguing that fear is an addition derived from the absolute power of the Church and has no place in Christian dogma according to scripture.

 

[BluePhantom]

There are two promises made by Christianity:fear and hope.

However, I see the two promises as a desperate attempt by the religion to garner members. For without these promises, why would Christianity even exists? Its advice on living is not always practical, and many of the claims of what the faithful can do are false and dangerous.

The promises of Christianity are love and forgiveness, a way of living this life with the hope (meaning expectation) that the yoke is easy and the burden is light. Slavery to sin is the harder, heavier burden which is kind of an irony because so often sin seems to be the easier way.

I am not sure what claims you feel are false and dangerous, so I cannot comment on that. If you mean faith healing instead of seeing a doctor, we probably agree; if you mean something else, we may or may not.

So dangerous, that they hide behind a claim that to test their faith is to test God. I have yet to find the Biblical reason why one should not test 'God' in this way. If anything, such tests should be encouraged, since it not only gives validity to the faith, but separates the true believers from the frauds.

Major denominations (the greater majority of the faithful) make no claim that to test faith is to test God. These are two separate issues, and most people expect tests of faith. Testing God (give us a sign that you exist) is what we are warned against doing. Instead of testing God we are called to seek Him.

Saying there is a "desperate attempt" for religion to gather members is like saying PE classes are a "desperate attempt" by professional sports to gather players and fans. Both Church and Sports exist because the interest of many is already there.

Love and forgiveness are part of the promise for hope-If you believe

The claims in Mark that claims the believer can handle poisonous snakes and drink deadly poisons are some of the dangerous claims made by Christianity.

The offer of PE classes do not come with threats, unless the school requires the passing of such course is a pre-requisite for graduation. However, Cults use threats and promises to garner membership.

Note: Religion is not Church. Yes, people have interest in religion. But each religion is different. Christianity is just one of many. I am talking about the tactics of Christianity, not every religion.

The section of Mark you are referring to was not part of the original gospel. It was added centuries later because the gospel ended so abruptly. According to Mark the women went to the tomb, Jesus told them to go tell the disciples about the resurrection and they said nothing for they were afraid and it ends. That's it. Later someone apparently thought Mark needed a happier ending and so added the verses you are referring to. I do wish people would be aware of that before they start kissing snakes thinking that God will protect them

 

[BluePhantom]

However, I seriously doubt these denomination can claim to follow the NT faithfully when they reject claims and concepts from the NT.

Many of the things in the Bible have little application to us today except in some abstract form. Society and technology have advanced and thus certain things are no longer necessary. You also have to put things into their proper perspective from the 1st century CE or earlier, depending on what you are reading. Paul was an apocalyptic prophet, hence, you must put his message into an apocalyptic world view for it to make sense. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul advises the people of Corinth not to change their status. Don't marry, don't divorce, don't have children, etc. The reasons why is because, in Paul's view, the faithful were about to ascend so there was no point in changing your status. Why bother having children if everyone will be in heaven soon anyhow? Furthermore, when someone has a family they worry about their family and not God. Since the kingdom of God was fast approaching, people should stop worrying about worldly matters and focus on God so they are prepared. Paul was obviously wrong. Had he known that 2,000 years later we would still be here waiting he would have probably said 'yeah go ahead. Get married and have kids'.

So unless you think God's good kingdom will come in our lifetime, there's not a great deal of direct application for Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 7. What we can do is take that advice, look for grander themes, such as not allowing worldly issues to interfere with your spiritual connection with God perhaps, and gain meaning from them.

 

[BluePhantom]

Indeed, righteousness cannot be obtained since all people are sinners and no one follows the Law in its entirety.

.
and not being a sinner does not make one righteous, just not a christian ... what the religion really says about righteousness.


Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

the mere fact christians are sinners is the Fear based Motivation ...

.

Ok well first let me clarify. We are talking according to Paul in the OP and more according to me in post #4. I am going to try to answer according to Paul and not me since that is what you quoted.

According to Paul: being a Christian has nothing to do with sin as all people sin whether they are Christian or not. Being Christian means accepting the grace of God. In other words, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus in payment for sin. Therefore, righteousness can only be achieved through grace and love. Sin is not acceptable, but it is inevitable. Consider the following:

"15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin,which leads to death,or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin,you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." (Rom. 6:15-18, NIV)

.
who's Paul

you refute the Commandment of the Almighty, the Parable of Noah, become sinless or perish, the religion of God for "All" humanity ?

.

Noah is a mythical tale, almost certainly derived from other flood narratives that pre-dated Judaism. The lesson of Noah you refer to is rendered moot by the sacrifice of Jesus according to Paul.

And Paul....you know...Paul of Tarsus. Apostle. Probably the single most important guy in the NT aside from Jesus.

 

[AudeSapere]

There are two promises made by Christianity:fear and hope.

However, I see the two promises as a desperate attempt by the religion to garner members. For without these promises, why would Christianity even exists? Its advice on living is not always practical, and many of the claims of what the faithful can do are false and dangerous.

The promises of Christianity are love and forgiveness, a way of living this life with the hope (meaning expectation) that the yoke is easy and the burden is light. Slavery to sin is the harder, heavier burden which is kind of an irony because so often sin seems to be the easier way.

I am not sure what claims you feel are false and dangerous, so I cannot comment on that. If you mean faith healing instead of seeing a doctor, we probably agree; if you mean something else, we may or may not.

So dangerous, that they hide behind a claim that to test their faith is to test God. I have yet to find the Biblical reason why one should not test 'God' in this way. If anything, such tests should be encouraged, since it not only gives validity to the faith, but separates the true believers from the frauds.

Major denominations (the greater majority of the faithful) make no claim that to test faith is to test God. These are two separate issues, and most people expect tests of faith. Testing God (give us a sign that you exist) is what we are warned against doing. Instead of testing God we are called to seek Him.

Saying there is a "desperate attempt" for religion to gather members is like saying PE classes are a "desperate attempt" by professional sports to gather players and fans. Both Church and Sports exist because the interest of many is already there.

Love and forgiveness are part of the promise for hope-If you believe

The claims in Mark that claims the believer can handle poisonous snakes and drink deadly poisons are some of the dangerous claims made by Christianity.

The offer of PE classes do not come with threats, unless the school requires the passing of such course is a pre-requisite for graduation. However, Cults use threats and promises to garner membership.

Note: Religion is not Church. Yes, people have interest in religion. But each religion is different. Christianity is just one of many. I am talking about the tactics of Christianity, not every religion.

The section of Mark you are referring to was not part of the original gospel. It was added centuries later because the gospel ended so abruptly. According to Mark the women went to the tomb, Jesus told them to go tell the disciples about the resurrection and they said nothing for they were afraid and it ends. That's it. Later someone apparently thought Mark needed a happier ending and so added the verses you are referring to. I do wish people would be aware of that before they start kissing snakes thinking that God will protect them

The Bible is a book full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history. The crucifixion and resurrection story has many contradictions (different versions of events) between the gospels.

There were over forty gospels written and only four were voted into the Canon at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.
The earliest found gospels are all found to be written in Greek and not in the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of Palestine/Judea/Israel

If the gospels were written by the purported eyewitnesses of the purported events in the gospel story, then what happened to the supposed originals written in the native language(s) of Palestine/Judea/Israel?

What I have learned in my research is...

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.