Virtue ethics is the best form of ethics because you can feel it, ever since I started practicing it as a central moral framework with Christianity at its center, my life has gotten better and better.
A great reminder for me to thank God and Jesus daily for raising women up from the cultural norms of that era. Thank you for your video and pointing out the scripture that helps me defend the Bible when people try to damn it by saying it subjugates women.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. -Matthew 7:18. this is a direct call that you should not focus so much on good actions but at making yourself a good person through the development of virtue. to make good fruit you must become a good tree. I’m a recent convert to Christianity and I’ve found that while Christianity has the best ideas and philosophies (in my humble opinion) its main issue is advertising these ideas in a way that the public can get behind and find value in, I believe as Christians we need to spread the ideas mentioned in this video as regardless of if you believe in God or not these virtue ethics can help you live a good life. I have discussed these ideas with my local reverend, I remember saying something like if we can make the church a great community gathering place that can give helpful moral advice for all then many will join and for some, if it is right for them, faith will follow.
One thing that I wondered about in your last video was if it does not lead to a sort of moral relativism, but I would say that I favor the virtue ethical theory because of Jesus. He criticized the Pharisees because they prayed on the streets so that people would see them and think very highly of them, but the action of publically praising God is, I think, good in and of itself. If deontology was true, Jesus would have praised them for their good deed, but He criticized them because they had the wrong motivation.The fact that Jesus hammered on the bad motivation while scarcely mentioning the good deed shows that the character, from which motivations flow, was more important than the actual deed. That firmly proves that Jesus taught a form of virtue ethics.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 The ethics in the New Testament are often misunderstood as simplistic and based on following universal commands, but they have a deeper context. 02:30 🏛️ The New Testament aligns with virtue ethics, emphasizing the cultivation of virtues for a flourishing life, similar to Aristotle's teachings. 05:06 🙌 Christian ethics involves glorifying God in all aspects of life, contributing to a virtuous and flourishing existence. 06:30 💞 Love is central to Christianity, extending beyond mere actions to genuinely caring for others' well-being and flourishing. 08:27 🛤️ Christian ethics isn't solely about following commandments but about forming a virtuous character that leads to right actions. 10:47 📖 The New Testament advocates that virtuous individuals serve as a standard of conduct, fostering a community characterized by virtuous behavior. 14:21 👥 Imitating virtuous teachers, particularly Christ, is key to developing virtuous character and living a proper Christian life. 18:40 🎙️ The Sermon on the Mount exemplifies Christian virtue ethics by detailing what a virtuous life entails, focusing on motives and desires. 21:54 🚧 Context matters in Christian ethics, determining the right course of action based on love, reason, and sensitivity to circumstances. 23:48 👥 Christian virtue ethics embraces all individuals, irrespective of social status, challenging Aristotle's exclusionary approach. 25:10 🙌 Christian ethics emphasizes mutual submission, equality, love, and cooperation in relationships. 25:40 👥 While the New Testament doesn't call for abolishing slavery, it teaches equality among all, diminishing class distinctions. 26:09 🌍 Christian virtue ethics is embedded in the larger Christian worldview and dependent on Christian doctrines. 26:37 🕊️ The Holy Spirit's regeneration drives Christians to be virtuous and good out of love and forgiveness received from Christ. 27:20 🌟 Christianity's goal extends beyond eudaimonia; it's to glorify God and build virtuous souls for eternity. 28:01 ⚖️ Integrity matters in Christian ethics because all individuals will be held accountable before God's judgment seat. 28:45 🤝 Christianity shifted ethical focus from public honor/shame to personal guilt and commitment to God's approval. 29:12 🔒 Encouragement to do good is rooted in a commitment to God, not societal honor, fostering ethical integrity. 29:53 📜 Christian ethics is dependent on core Christian doctrines, soteriology, and eschatology for its motivations. 30:06 🌐 Christian virtue ethics offers a more inclusive ethical framework compared to traditional Aristotelian ethics.
Really well put together. I love how you emphasized that virtue comes from living a life glorified to God. It is so true. We are made new in Christ and from there shall our temperament reflect what is in our heart. As Andrew Murray says " Temperament is proof of whether the love of Christ is filling the heart or not." God Bless ~
I don't normally comment unless I absolutely feel I have to speak. And I must say, IP....You definitely kill everything you touch, by the power of God. Your research and analysis are maximally impeccable.
I honestly I can’t believe this video just showed up, I’ve been reading the books the four loves by C.S Lewis and this is a very similar message and what I believe is the essence of Christianity!!
Thank for the video! I guess that this gives a checkmate on the accusation that Christian are doing good actions only because they are looking for a heavenly reward (as a "carrot" analogy). In contrast, "new atheists" (or even regular, atheist) still insist that morality comes naturality from evolution... In this case the "carrot" would be endorphins in our brain. I've covered the problem of these theory in my channel. Human history shows quite clearly that for thousands of years, the ones that have more chance to reproduced were the more narcissistic types. Thus, it does not make sense to say that virtue could come from there. See "Does our idea of good and evil comes from natural selection?" (5 mn).
@@missouritravelers I think that morals comes more from logic than instinct. If you the video in the channel you will see that it more like that evolution would selected the more narcissistic ones of us (not otherwise).
@@missouritravelers I'm not talking about a theory here. It what is actually observed in human history. Narcissism and tribalism are very good to survival and reproduction. You can look at the data in the video in my channel.
this is going to be another great video this channel really taught me stuff i didn't know about the bible, before knowing this channel existed, i was a young earth creationist, but this channel made me change my mind
Love this! I think a great example of this is the Egyptian midwives who were instructed to kill male Hebrew babies on the delivery table. But because they feared God they didn't follow Pharoah's command. When he asked them about this the implication is at least that they lied to him and said that the Hebrew women deliver before the midwives could arrive. Not only does God not punish them for lying, scripture says He blessed them with families of their own because they protected the Hebrew children.
Most ciritcs of New Testament ethics in the circles I am in is of it being "slave morality". I have a friend who is of the belief that Christian ethics inspire weakness as opposed to strength (turn the other cheek type stuff). A few months ago he became a neo pagan and rejected Christianity and abrahamism as a whole as being essentially a psyop to weaken European man. How would you respond to these accusations and the critic of Christianity as slave morality? Rn I am trying to figure out how to convince him out of this stupidity.
There are a lot of similarities between Christian ethics and Stoic ethics. Stoicism was at one point the main philosophy in Rome, thaught in every noble household, and practiced by Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Stoics considered anger to be irrational and a loss of control resulting from wrong beliefs. They valued harmony with the Logos of nature, with society and with one's human rational and social nature. Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote: "no man is free who is not master of himself " and "It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures, but the foolish to be a slave to them" and "Any person capable of angering you becomes your master". Is it not true and alligning with Christian ethics? Is not turning the other cheek just that? This is true freedom, because nothing in the outside world will be able to move your inner self or defeat your soul. Being ruled by your passions is being like an animal, easily manipulated, easily distracted, easily subjugated. This is true slavery.
Most of what this slave morality critique lies in is indeed this deontological conception of Christianity, or the usage of it as a doctrine, to counter that we need to promote a form of virtue ethics. We need to also show him the heroic nature of Christianity, that Christianity had a clear sense of vitality in the past and did produce a type of man that would be able to carry its legacy for over two millennia. Were the Christian kings or heroes born out of a slave morality? No, they were not. It is only through the degradation of modern Civilisation (and other ideological forces preceding it, mind you, that are very critical of Christianity, like liberalism) that we see the appearance of the Last Man.
I Love your videos michael!! i was a deontic moralist, thinking that certain things must be moral o inmoral to do, like a law and that these things got me sad because i didn´t know which things were correct to follow or how to mediate them and which things are bad or which things are not bad, like thinking that if talk to someone was a good decition to imitate Jesus. and i was struggling to see what were the limits of that moral duties, and i came to see this video and I learnt about the virtue, the one that Jesus worked, and the one that we must put to work. Thank you very much michael for helping me to leave that dark and anguishing abysm
Well, certain things are and always will be inmoral to do, if they take you further away from god, from love and truth, if they violate the design of the creation.
Glad I found this channel. One of the most underrated Apologetics ever. I also have a question, was Yahweh originated from the canaanites? Please make a video off of this thanks!
I am not a chrismated member of the Orthodox Church, I am but an inquirer about to become a Catechumen, but I think virtue ethics comes closest to what Orthodoxy wants of people. The goal of Orthodoxy is theosis, which is both communing with God and becoming like God (mutually reinforcing actions), you do good actions to participate with God, and you do evil actions in participation with the evil one(s). It is neither consequentialism (which implies a normal human’s wisdom can be on par with God), nor deontology (which implies actions are ‘good’ in isolation’. My only problem with virtue ethics is that it bears the implications of a an impersonal God of the hellenists, as well as denying some of the liturgical aspects of reality
Some miracles 1.Eucharistic miracles 2.Miracles of Lourdes 3.Incorrupt body of St. Francis Xavier, St. Bernadette 4.Liquifaction of blood of St. Janerius 5.Levitation of St Joseph of Cupertino 6.Our Lady of Fatima 7.Conversion of satanic priest Blessed bartolo longo because of Rosary 8.Stigmata of St. Padre Pio, St. Francis of Assisi 9.Lepanto victory due to rosary 10.Our Lady of Velankani 11.Our Lady Of Guadalupe 12.Our Lady of the Pillar 13.Miracles of St. Anthony
Our problem is that, at every opportunity it seems, we distill moral values into another rule, another modal argument. Rules are a reflection of values, not the values themselves, the map *of* the true moral landscape (with a left-handed tip of the cap to Sam Harris), not the landscape itself. In yet another way, the map is not the territory. Excellent and thought-proking vid!
"Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself? Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool. Why should you die before your time? It is good that you should take hold of this, and from that withhold not your hand, for the one who fears God shall come out from both of them." Solomon talked about virtue ethics, before Aristotle, established virtue ethics
@Prasanth Thomas friend this is not utilitarianism, there is nothing about "morally good actions are those with the most amount of utility" what Solomon is describing is virtue ethics, that there are two extremes to every action and the virtuous thing is the middle path, for example, In virtue ethics, the vices would be, absolute pacifist, and murderer, you do not want to be an absolute pacifist, what if someone goes and tries to kill you, however, you don't want to be a murderer and kill people, the virtuous thing is, being peaceful but refusing self defense is foolishness Another example, being lazy or being active all the time, these are vices, being lazy, you're not doing anything, however being active all the time, gets you burnt out and your body will get fatigued eventually. The virtuous thing is to be active however find your rest when you can That is virtue ethics, Solomon's "there is a time for everything" is a fundamental idea of virtue ethics
@Prasanth Thomas yes I know, they would not agree with following the commandments all the time in every situation, they do not believe that morally good things, are not always the right thing to do, hence why they believe in virtue, they would agree with Solomon's prescriptions of "do not be overly righteous lest you destroy yourself, yet do not be overly wicked, why would you die before your time" that is a key fundamental principle in virtue ethics, that morally good things aren't always good in every situation, you need to "wise", that there is a time and a place to right and to do wrong things aka a time to lie, honesty is a virtue where you don't lie because that is a vice, yet you do not want to tell the truth all the time because that can lead to problems, Solomon in proverbs does say to always seek for wisdom, there's nothing wrong with that, wisdom is a virtue in virtue ethics
@@InspiringPhilosophy It would still be wrong to lie. You can say nothing, try to distract him, or say something that is vague, ambiguous, or subtly off-topic but not untrue. You could threaten the Nazi, since he is threatening someone under your protection. Indeed, if his attempt to murder is imminent, you may even use violence against him out of self-defense. There is no question that the murderer at your door has no right to the life of the person under your protection. Still, you cannot lie. Lying is a universal moral evil. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: "An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Ethic. iv, 7) that 'lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.' Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i). "
@@appliedvirtue7731 That is still deceit though. Misleading people from the truth is still lying. You are tricking them to believe something that is false.
@@retrictumrectus1010 Not every deception is a lie. Telling your colleague "I'm fine" even though you've got a headache, a rebellious teenage daughter, and financial problems isn't a lie. Putting on a poker face during a card game or faking out another player during a basketball game isn't a lie. Wearing camouflage during wartime isn't a lie. Rather, what a lie consists of essentially is willful speech or other communicative behavior contrary to one’s mind. That is to say, one lies when one wills to communicate the message that P when what one really thinks is not-P. But what counts as “communicating the message that P” will depend on the particular circumstances and the conventions of whatever language you use. Broad mental reservations, like the one Jesus employed in John 7:8-10, are not lies. If we say that Jesus lied like tektontv claimed in the video that IP cited, then we wouldn't be able to call Jesus God, as it says in Titus 1:2 that God cannot lie.
Very interesting - I have been waiting for this video since your hinting last time that something like this was coming. My unresolved thoughts following a first watch are about what would ground these virtues. For the Christian, they would be the character and nature of God as revealed in his word and creation. I feel as if humans could try to (and often do) construct a system of virtues apart from God’s revelation (Proverbs 14:12) Scripture speaks of performing certain actions, and not inheriting the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9) Some actions that our current cultural moment would consider virtuous. So yes, we all do have some general sense of virtues (Romans 2:14), but yet we have to be instructed what good and true virtues are as fallen humans. Else, it seems as if virtue would be subject to the overriding majority definition of the cultural moment.
I guess I am not sure how much virtue ethics really fits into Christianity because there are distinct negations within christian ethics that seem to conflict against the notion of Aristotle’s golden mean. Obviously there is some overlap, but I do not find myself looking for virtue ethical philosophy within the New Testament, as it just doesn’t seem to be as robust as Aristotle proposed... I am not saying the Bible is wrong by the way, only that it isn’t really a virtue ethics text...
Aristotle does not own virtue ethics. Deviations from his ideas does not mean that the bible is not a virtue ethics text. Furthermore, our entire salvation and moral/spiritual development is based on transformation of our essence. Jesus teaches that we are defiled by what is in us, for example. Paul says we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. We are a "new creature". We are born again of spirit. These are all indicative of virtue focused ethics. We transform into a virtuous person over time, sanctified by Christ, and we now work to become that which we are made into by Christ.
@@droe2570 I didn’t say that Aristotle owned VE per se, but I think it’s disingenuous to act as if he is not the foremost thinker/progenitor of the ethical position. It’s like talking about deontology without Kant, or Utilitarianism without Bentham and Mill... even though they do not own the ethical framework, they at least started it and have more credibility on it by virtue of their proximity. Further, while I agree that deviations from his work do not inherently exclude from VE, the golden mean is not just some idea he had in the peripheries... it’s like the whole basis for the theory, which Michael even addresses in the video! You can’t really get rid of it without some pretty good arguments, which I don’t think the Bible makes if it’s goal was to present a virtue ethical theory.
@@gideonwiley8961 "if it’s goal was to present a virtue ethical theory." This is a strange notion. The bible is older than Aristotle, after all, though not the NT, of course. It presents a true vision of morality; that is, what does God say is morality. The teachings of Jesus and Paul in the NT do not represent a new teaching of what morality is. Jesus is certainly older than Aristotle, and unless you want to say that Jesus' teaching on virtue and primarily on love as the basis for all morality is derived from Aristotle, then you would have to argue that Jesus is not God. IP is trying to use Aristotle and others as a means of explaining virtue ethics, not suggesting that the bible is based on Aristotle. After all, Aristotle was not God, his ideas will be flawed. The argument is not that the bible is mimicking Aristotle, but that Aristotle hit on the correct basis, to a degree, of true morality, and that virtue ethics is indeed the correct way, in human terms, of trying to understand morality from God's point of view. It is Jesus who said that we must be born again of Spirit, and if Jesus is God, then this concept of becoming pure in our essence, that is, becoming "virtuous," is much older than Aristotle.
If I kindly may ask have you checked out The God Culture yet? They done videos about the Tower of Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah you may be interested in checking out as well as a complete timeline of the Bible using Jubilees and Yahuah's calender.
It seems that biblical ethics is guided by finding the proper higherarchy of fixed values. The discussion where Jesus and a sage are discussing this, the sage proposes the shema as the highest command or virtue Jesus agrees and ads the levitetical virtue of loving neighbors as self as the second highest. This is the Rabbi Hillel's point as well. In biblical thought the correct application of the highest virtue possible is the goal of ethical living. Ethics requires the biblical axioms properly understood in their relational higherarchy, not situations creating the ethical axioms out of whole cloth. It is the propper application like the good Samaritan parable that places preservation of life over the ritual duties of worship. Without the axioms and a well understood relational higherarchy there is no ethical system. And this isn't dry legal discourse it is relational life focused on how to best love God ourselves and the precious people around us.
Sometimes I wonder if this is what is meant by being made in the Image of God. It certainly helps getting through all the disappointments in a chaotic world, and you get better at it as time goes on and I’ve learnt when I’m wrong or someone else is it starts getting much easier to forgive. It’s much easier to laugh.
I greatly appreciate this video and its timing for me is divinely appointed. However, I'm sure that a rather strong case is also made by those who say NT Christianity teaches a deontic ethic. I'd be curious to see a debate on this subject.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:18-19
In Evangelical Churchs here we Brasil, instead of focusing in the imitation of Christ and to know and love God, we focuses in what is right and wrong to do. They don't seens to know that a true Christian regenerated by the role spirit will have the necessary wisdon to discern the right and wrong. Of course, this discerniment is constructed between the church, but it should not be the main goal of the Church lissening to say what is wrong or good.
Does anyone believe that this contradicts moral realism? I’m currently unsure of the status (or relevance) since ANY two agents must have a relationship and optimizing the relationship of these agents would require virtues.
Question: when it says that "By the Fruit of the Spirit is the virtues"; do you not think that this implies that those virtues are a bi-product of deontological moral commandments? @InspiringPhilosophy Help me shed some light on this. Great channel and great video!!
@inspiringphilophy are you homeschooling with Charlotte Mason? Great cirriculum based on Christain ethics, I feel like you must be, especially with your references here to habit building!
20:41 Regarding context, does this not mean that virtue ethics would devolve into situational ethics? How would this be applied to the classic case of lying as a sin? Is there ever a context in which lying could be virtuous? Such as in the case of aiding Jews and hiding them in Nazi Germany? Edit: 23:25
In Joshua, Rahab lies about hiding Hebrew spies within the walls of Jericho to protect them from the soldiers. In the Books of Hebrews and James she is called a woman of faith who did good works and her name is listed amongst the ancestors of Christ in Matthew's genealogy. Based on that, and my intuition about saving people from other people interested in killing them. it seems like lying is sometimes ok, especially in that sort of circumstance.
So at 23:00 you say that it is never okay to practice idolatry, but yet slavery is still permissible in the new testament so how does follow through chrsitian virtue ethics, unless slavery is not always immoral and in some cases are moral? This video seems like picking and choosing what you like and ignoring everything else to fit a motive
@pleaseenteraname1103 ay it's my amigo again. Sure Here, my definition of slavery "the state of a person who is held in forced servitude." His video on virtue ethics makes no sense. By his logic sexual immorality and worshipping idols are never okay under any circumstances. therefore, the bible has always been against it, yet by that standard slavery isn't. By his logic, idol worship is worse than slavery
@@MohamedAli-nf1rp well I would define it more brodadly but that definition is fine. No history of ethics is basically that we don’t need to be told every single thing that’s wrong in order to know that it’s wrong, we can stand by basic moral principles and come to the conclusion that things are wrong based on those principles. So for instants the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn sex trafficking or slavery but we can know that those two things are wrong based on the principles that we already have. Again it depends on how you define slavery if you define slavery more broadly which was the case and during biblical times and there are cases where it can be justified, in the case of sexual immorality there’s no case and where that could possibly be virtuous and the same goes for idol worshiping. Well based on your definition not necessarily but if you define it more broadly yes.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 "g, we can stand by basic moral principles and come to the conclusion that things are wrong based on those principles" Yes, I agree I do think we could come to the understanding that slavery is wrong based on principle, I just wished the bible would agree ". Again it depends on how you define slavery if you define slavery more broadly which was the case and during biblical times and there are cases where it can be justified," Please point to me where it is justifiable to buy a slave, own him as property, and keep him as a slave for life. I don't know about you but I see slavery as immoral always. "n the case of sexual immorality there’s no case and where that could possibly be virtuous" interesting, so you for example don't believe things such as homosexuality, or premarital sex to be virtuous, but sex slaves would somehow not fall into that? since once again the bible permits owning sex slaves and having sex with said slaves.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Can you properly define "slavery" so that the practice is morally acceptable or is your "definition" something only you believe because you have constructed a false definition in your mind that nobody else could find without accessing your personal dictionary? Is that the case? Are you just making up false definitions? If not then provide it so that we can see how YOU define "slavery" so that it is morally acceptable.... Is it still morally acceptable to purchase a person and consider them to be your inheritable property as long as they are not Hebrew, and that you "love" your human property like I "love" my dog...since I love my dog, but my dog is also my legal property...??? To clarify the last question is asking what teaches man that the act of purchasing a person and considering them inheritable property is immoral, or do you believe it is morally acceptable still because the Bible gives a guideline for practicing slavery without ever teaching us it is forbidden?
I feel like I agree with the concept here, in that an action being good, or bad is not the whole story of whether you behaved in a good way or not, but the intention behind the action is also important. but I think you overcomplicate it in explaination. Also due to the over complication I think you may mislead people into thinking that virtue ethics, = subjective morality. You need to make it clear that Vito's character is the ultimate good to aim at beyond simple rules, because, and not in spite of objective morality. The virtue of bravery, or courage is good because it allows you to not he subject to fear, and you can do the right thing, even when afraid. It is good to do the right thing even when afraid, in example saving a person from a burning building. Saving someone from a burning building is good, because they are a living person. And that saving someone life is good, because life is a fundamentally good thing. And it goes no deeper than that. Virtues are good, because they align your character with what is objectively good.
I do think it has lot to do with character build but not to say morality is only dictated to Rules but living up to your character and God is to build yours because Destiny by itself is to come to a end so he forming are Destiny guiding it so it doesn't have a end you can't dictated people of right or wrong because you are only following Rules to means to a end and the Heart has nothing to do with it Destiny needs are Hearts in are character and God so we don't have that means to a end virtues teach something that is meant to give us a direction of what actions to take in that circumstance Where Rules do not they instead reinforce bad things to continue doesn't solve anything including crime forgiveness is a virtues that was not mentioned in this video but very important because without forgiveness we become more evil .
Sorry for delay in a reply... Homosexuality can be viewed as ethically acceptable if you force it to be so, but that does not necessarily mean it is beneficial to our species. Women preaching or teaching in the presence of other male and female members of our species is quite acceptable if she is upholding the Truth of the Creator of our species. The non-technical answer... :)
It's even more fundamental, it's about from death to life. He isn't interested in making us good, but alive. I would also disagree about the peacekeeping not holding at all times. We should not use the Old Testament to condition the New Testament, rather we read the Old in light of Christ and the New Testament. That is one point of the transfiguration and the Road to Emmaus, the Old Testament is about Christ and is read through the light of Him, the New Testament and the Gospel, explaining it's true meaning. To read it otherwise is to read it with a veil on, not truly reading it at all. After all, Peter acting in defence of Christ was in defence of the most innocent and goos person that ever existed. If ever to use violence in defense of the innocence were to be justified it was here, but Christ takes the sword out of Peter's hand. And He doesn't say this is not the time for that because the Son of Man must be delivered to the Gentiles to die. No, He reveals a universal truth "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" and so place themselves under death, and serve that which is God's final enemy. Tertullian said here Christ had taken the sword out of the hand of every soldier with this. Origen in his defense of Christianity against Celsus who complained that Christians wouldn't act to defend the Empire said the Church was an army that shed no blood, but rather was engaged in a spiritual battle. Soldiers who killed or magistrates ordering an execution were barred from the Eucharist until major repentance and penance. Christ deepens the truth of the commandment thou shalt not kill to mean just that, that all killing is murder, and will hurt us. It is never virtuous. The war Christians are called to is not and never against flesh and blood, but against powers and principles, spiritual wickedness in high places. That is the time of war we should be involved in.
I think the bible teaches a combined form of Deontological and virtue ethics. Aristotle didn’t have divine commands from a perfect Omniscient God, therefore virtue ethics was the best he could offer. The bible gives some absolute demands for every people everywhere every time.
Now long monogamous comitted relationship (without marriage) between any 2 genders in the west, unlike many countries (arab and muslim countries) in which legal and religous marriage is like rape physically and emotionally and ethically
@@Norbingel homosexuality falls into the category of an action and desire that are not found in the life of a virtuous person such as rape and murder as it is not predicated in love.
Your way of explaining virtue ethics doesn't escape Mill's utilitarianism. Also, it isn't Aristotelian virtue ethics as his view of eudaimonia is different (you have to read past the first chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics). So, it is a case of special pleading Christian virtue ethics and then then question will arise on why you think flourishing is living in a way glorifying God. This is partly empirical, but when it fails you have a trump card in that you can push everything to after death. Can you use Christian virtue ethics to read the Biblical texts? Well, yes, some of them. Not all of them.
The bible allowed slavery because the people at the time did not consider it to be immoral. How do you reconcile that with considering the bible to be a guide for morality?
@@lancemarchetti8673 Unlike you, I will not be rude and will answer the question you suggest should be asked....Yes... the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the Hebrew Bible gives a guideline to morality... Your question is pointless...The Bible should not be used as a tool to recognize the morality of actions... Would you trust a tool to perform a task if that tool could not perform the task consistently? The Bible teaches us that slavery can be considered morally acceptable without ever teaching us that slavery is forbidden or even unwanted as long as you "love" your slave, and that you do not treat a Hebrew as a slave... Is it ever morally acceptable to be allowed to purchase people and consider them to be inheritable property?
1. "One could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions, without any love love for the person." No, they couldn't. Love is a choice, not a feeling. Performing right actions to people is the same thing as acting in love to them. 2. The Pharisees didn't act correctly, as Jesus pointed out. They didn't because they didn't love. They thought actions saved them. This doesn't show duty based ethics are wrong, only they didn't do the correct duty (to love God first and others next). 3. I don't think you can do a good job describing what God changes us into without using duty based or virtue based terms. That being said, I can't think of how to define virtue based words without first using duty based words, so it seems to me that duty is primary. 4. It seems that you think many words are virtue based when I'd call them duty based. I could be biased, so that doesn't mean much, other than that it seems there isn't full agreement on the terms we're using. 5. Actions do not do anything for us, in themselves. Actions show what's inside us (see the book of James). The purpose of duty based ethics isn't to save us, it's to show us how to act ethically. 6. Being virtuous doesn't save us. Actions don't save us. Following moral rules doesn't save us. Ethics is limited in its usefulness so pointing out that following moral rules doesn't fix us isn't surprising. 7. I note you keep avoiding using anything like the term "must" or "have to". You say we are "called", which is just another way to say that those who listen obey. Aren't you just avoiding the terms because they point out that you simply can't do Christianity without recognizing you have a duty to do [X]? 8. You point out that the sermon on the mount includes blessings on virtuous behavior AND duties that you must perform. It seems you can't follow Christ without doing your duty! 9. "The proper action to take ...and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do." No. Absolutely not. The proper action to take is what God commands you to do. Too often Christians do the wrong thing because of what they think is the most "loving" thing is to do, sacrificing God's actual words for their concept of "love". One mustn't murder, ever. One must train your child up in the way they should go even if they think what they must do isn't "kind". One mustn't commit adultery, ever. The reason why this is true isn't because they don't flow from virtuous character, but because you cannot be virtuous and do these things! 10. I am not claiming that Christianity doesn't require one to be virtuous. That being said, it does require us to do our duty to be moral. And, regardless of all of that, a requirement to be virtuous IS a duty!
Well, tell me Michael, would it be moral for me to move in with my girlfriend(If I had one)? I mean, if you're right about this it could very well be. Which would make Christianity more appealing and less restrictive for a lot of people. You said we're supposed to use our reason when it comes to sexuality, right? Well, if two people love and care for each other, and are not married, can't they have sex? Under virtue ethics, isn't it the case that as long as you don't exploit, harm, or decieve people that you can make love to whoever can consent?
The argument you offer against Christian pacifism is inappropriate and incorrect. We are called to be peacemakers in the deepest and fullest sense, such that even our enemies we may not hate or wage war against. Christ explicitly commanded, in this very context, that we are to love our enemies, and he gave us his example of laying down his own life rather than taking up arms against his enemies who were intending to kill him and actually did so. There is a time for war, but there is no time for the good and virtuous to wage war and kill their enemies. There is a significant amount of teaching and law and doctrine concerning this, that is based on the notion that each human being is a son of God and is made in the image of God and is marked by God, such that his life may not be taken, even when he takes the life of his brother, as taught in Gen. 1:26-28 and Gen. 4. This status of men is to distinguish them from animals that kill for various reasons or justifications: man is not to become a beast, oppressing and killing his brothers, rather, he is to master the beast of sin and rule it, that he may not become that beast. That beast of sin enslaves people and makes them beasts, and Christ taught us how to respond to beasts: with love and goodness and forgiveness, rather than going to war against them. Being a peacemaker means transforming enemies into friends, and beasts into men, not by shedding their blood but by using our intelligence and virtue and wisdom to propagate the kingdom of God and to mitigate our damages without inflicting damage on others, for love does no harm to another (Rom. 13:8-10). The approach you take here is actually legalistic, rather than virtue ethics. The legalistic approach says that we may have legal exceptions or rules permitting or justifying, for example, taking human life, whether for murder or other offences, or whether for necessity or justification such as self defense or 'just war.' We then can pat ourselves on the back every time we have a legal exception or justification for taking human life but we, by supererogatory works, find a way to deal with the problem without taking human life. Yet, you take this even further, claiming that it may be virtuous to shed human blood -- to your shame! The true virtue ethics of Christianity says that we must demonstrate gentleness and non-violence and self-sacrificing love and peacemaking and respect for human life always and at all times. A virtuous Christian may never spot his hands with human blood. The time for war that Christ spoke of was the time of great lawlessness and disorder and rebellion and deception and apostasy when Israel rejected the way of peace. Christ came to bring not peace to the land of Israel, but a sword (Mat. 10:34) and division (Luke 12:51). Yet, Christ brought peace to Israel, the peace she would not accept, but was hidden from their eyes, because they did not know the time of her visitation of peace (Luke 19:41-44). This division and war was not treated, therefore, as endorsed or celebrated, rather it was to be mourned (Luke 19:41 cf. Rom. 9:1-5,22,27-28).
So u believe lets say we roll time back to the third reich. That the brits shouldnt have retaileated in blitzkreig. Let innocent blood be shed. Immagine the world today had good men not stood in evils way. What christ was saying is to not hate are enimeis pray for them. That tells me that he is humanising them. Teaching war creates pain. No christian no human should desire war. But war is nessesary in evil. Wonder what the world would be today. If america hadnt retailiated. Against britian.
144,000 All light workers we need to sign the liberation petition for our planet with Gaia mother earth. If you can't write while your astro projected, just say it to her. NOW The portal is open. On the 21st meditate with intention to employ to procreate, activate the trigger for light loving beings for divine intervention. THIS HAS TO BE DONE OR THEY WILL NOT HELP US. People who are not light workers yet, you can do this! Status is not required, pure intent is required.God I hope I reach them all. Please help us restore humanity.
Another example of your eisegesis to support virtue ethics by misusing the biblical texts is misreading the Sermon on the Mount as containing 'sections on proper desires' and then quotes Mat. 5:22 as if it said 'Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder.' This is not what the text says, nor what it means. The text states that the one who is angry with his brother will be 'liable to judgement.' In context, this is a repeat of the Mosaic judgement of murder, which is the death penalty -- although the death penalty was not to be applied as the procedural requirements put it out of reach (e.g. Deut. 17:6-7), and the policy was for human life to be marked by God as in his image and not liable to the death penalty even if guilty of murder (Gen. 4). So, in context, the Lord is not talking about the sins so much as the legal responses or judgement for different sins. The Lord's point is to say that angry words, like calling someone 'Fool!' will lead to the legal judgements and even the death penalty that Moses prescribed but also put out of reach, and that was to be applied to him when he called the Scribes and the Pharisees 'Blind Fools!' (Mat. 23:17), and his body was in danger of dishonorable disposal in Gehenna, a fate he was saved from by Joseph of Arimathea (Mat. 27:57-60). This, then, addresses the Lord's real point about the death penalty: it was a danger not to murderers (like Barabbas who was released), but rather for those who challenged the politically powerful with angry or disrespectful words (e.g. treason or sedition or tax-protest teaching, which the Lord was charged with in Luke 23:1-2). This is, in fact the background for the use of the death penalty in the biblical teaching, e.g. the Sons of God Mighty Men war lords in Gen. 6 are political 'beasts' that use death to acquire and maintain and expand political power, which is why they were wiped out and why a Second Flood judgement was promised against the beasts in the future (Gen. 9:5-6). Political power and legal power is also applied against angry or disrespectful words by means of defamation law which works by acquiring money judgements against those who speak truth to power or otherwise challenge the well connected, as the Lord mentioned in the context of Mat. 5:22, specifically in Mat. 5:23-26. None of this analysis matters to Michael Jones who has simply read in his assumptions and desired teaching that the Lord is discussing the desires that we have when we do good or bad things. No, Michael, that is not what this text is about, and not what it says. What happened to reading the texts in their historical and cultural context, including the legal and political context, and the context of Matthew's gospel which features the Lord calling them fools who put him to death with the power of their state?
Why should one glorify God? Why should one live a flourishing life? In the end Christian ethics is still deontological. God is the concept of good, so whatever he communicates to us as good is good. Simple. Just accept that slavery and the subjugation of women is not wrong according to the bible instead of being self righteous. You have fallen far from when you acknowledged God as the source of good in your early videos on morality. What a shame.
@@JM-19-86 how can good be grounded in God without him communicating to us what is good? Isn't that the same as subjective morality? And the Bible does not consider subjugation women to be bad. So if I were to believe the Bible it would be consistent to believe that if the Bible is the inspired word of God, that therefore subjugation women isnt bad. Moreover, how would me thinking that despite all this, subjugaying women is wrong mean that that idea somehow came from The One True God™?
I usually like this channel, but this isn't right. Virtue Ethics begins with Aristotle, not God, flows through Aquinas to MacIntyre et al., and in modern times, is Catholic. The biblical ethic is relational, based in the character of God Himself, and is powered by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. It is not focused on inducing people just to try harder to pursue a set of Greek-style virtues. So I'm sorry, but this is not correct, and not really biblical. I hope your next video will be back on track. Best wishes.
I never said it was based on inducing people to try harder to pursue a set of Greek-style virtue. I focused on the virtues the New Testament promotes, which were different, as I said in the last section.
Virtue ethics is the best form of ethics because you can feel it, ever since I started practicing it as a central moral framework with Christianity at its center, my life has gotten better and better.
Cool Eren Yeager 😄
If Eren Jaeger had done so too 😭
In your own words, define “ETHICS”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@TheWorldTeacher The branch of philosophy that studies morality. I could make it longer
Same!
A great reminder for me to thank God and Jesus daily for raising women up from the cultural norms of that era. Thank you for your video and pointing out the scripture that helps me defend the Bible when people try to damn it by saying it subjugates women.
Thank you
Actually it doesnt. Its still deontological. Rape is okay in marriage according to Paul
@@missouritravelers Go home, Mason.
@@missouritravelers I bElIeVe YoU aRe CoMiNg FrOm A pOsItIoN oF iGnOrAnCe Of ThE cRaFt.
@@missouritravelers YoU oNlY kNoW wHaT yOuTuBe TeLlS yOu.
I'm actually a 37th degree Ubër Mason with a black belt in Free Kung Masonry Fu.
This is so well put. The content itself is a bread of life.
Thank you
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@TheWorldTeacherhe's a Christian and yes he does belive in God
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. -Matthew 7:18.
this is a direct call that you should not focus so much on good actions but at making yourself a good person through the development of virtue. to make good fruit you must become a good tree.
I’m a recent convert to Christianity and I’ve found that while Christianity has the best ideas and philosophies (in my humble opinion) its main issue is advertising these ideas in a way that the public can get behind and find value in, I believe as Christians we need to spread the ideas mentioned in this video as regardless of if you believe in God or not these virtue ethics can help you live a good life. I have discussed these ideas with my local reverend, I remember saying something like if we can make the church a great community gathering place that can give helpful moral advice for all then many will join and for some, if it is right for them, faith will follow.
One thing that I wondered about in your last video was if it does not lead to a sort of moral relativism, but I would say that I favor the virtue ethical theory because of Jesus. He criticized the Pharisees because they prayed on the streets so that people would see them and think very highly of them, but the action of publically praising God is, I think, good in and of itself. If deontology was true, Jesus would have praised them for their good deed, but He criticized them because they had the wrong motivation.The fact that Jesus hammered on the bad motivation while scarcely mentioning the good deed shows that the character, from which motivations flow, was more important than the actual deed. That firmly proves that Jesus taught a form of virtue ethics.
Exactly. Ethics is more than deeds
I'll be catching this late, after work.
Merry Christmas to everyone in the live chat when it drops. 😃
Merry Christmas, sir.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📜 The ethics in the New Testament are often misunderstood as simplistic and based on following universal commands, but they have a deeper context.
02:30 🏛️ The New Testament aligns with virtue ethics, emphasizing the cultivation of virtues for a flourishing life, similar to Aristotle's teachings.
05:06 🙌 Christian ethics involves glorifying God in all aspects of life, contributing to a virtuous and flourishing existence.
06:30 💞 Love is central to Christianity, extending beyond mere actions to genuinely caring for others' well-being and flourishing.
08:27 🛤️ Christian ethics isn't solely about following commandments but about forming a virtuous character that leads to right actions.
10:47 📖 The New Testament advocates that virtuous individuals serve as a standard of conduct, fostering a community characterized by virtuous behavior.
14:21 👥 Imitating virtuous teachers, particularly Christ, is key to developing virtuous character and living a proper Christian life.
18:40 🎙️ The Sermon on the Mount exemplifies Christian virtue ethics by detailing what a virtuous life entails, focusing on motives and desires.
21:54 🚧 Context matters in Christian ethics, determining the right course of action based on love, reason, and sensitivity to circumstances.
23:48 👥 Christian virtue ethics embraces all individuals, irrespective of social status, challenging Aristotle's exclusionary approach.
25:10 🙌 Christian ethics emphasizes mutual submission, equality, love, and cooperation in relationships.
25:40 👥 While the New Testament doesn't call for abolishing slavery, it teaches equality among all, diminishing class distinctions.
26:09 🌍 Christian virtue ethics is embedded in the larger Christian worldview and dependent on Christian doctrines.
26:37 🕊️ The Holy Spirit's regeneration drives Christians to be virtuous and good out of love and forgiveness received from Christ.
27:20 🌟 Christianity's goal extends beyond eudaimonia; it's to glorify God and build virtuous souls for eternity.
28:01 ⚖️ Integrity matters in Christian ethics because all individuals will be held accountable before God's judgment seat.
28:45 🤝 Christianity shifted ethical focus from public honor/shame to personal guilt and commitment to God's approval.
29:12 🔒 Encouragement to do good is rooted in a commitment to God, not societal honor, fostering ethical integrity.
29:53 📜 Christian ethics is dependent on core Christian doctrines, soteriology, and eschatology for its motivations.
30:06 🌐 Christian virtue ethics offers a more inclusive ethical framework compared to traditional Aristotelian ethics.
Thankyou!!
I have been waiting for a follow up to your very beautiful video on virtue ethics. Praise the Lord that it’s finally here 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽
This video helps to show what the foundation of Christianity is. Thank you!
You are welcome
@@missouritravelers no that's false.
@@missouritravelers quiet
Really well put together. I love how you emphasized that virtue comes from living a life glorified to God. It is so true. We are made new in Christ and from there shall our temperament reflect what is in our heart. As Andrew Murray says " Temperament is proof of whether the love of Christ is filling the heart or not." God Bless ~
Never thought I would be sold on virtue ethics, I was very wrong
I don't normally comment unless I absolutely feel I have to speak. And I must say, IP....You definitely kill everything you touch, by the power of God. Your research and analysis are maximally impeccable.
Thank you. I wasn’t sure if by kill you meant bad or good, but the end clarified
I honestly I can’t believe this video just showed up, I’ve been reading the books the four loves by C.S Lewis and this is a very similar message and what I believe is the essence of Christianity!!
Wonderful
@@InspiringPhilosophy grace through faith and the body of Christ bound by love. ❤️✊🙏🇨🇦
@@missouritravelers it’s Christian theology that Christ redeemed the fall of man
WHAT A RIDE... This will be key for me to reread and to unlock Paul, Thank you so much!
You're very welcome!
Thank for the video! I guess that this gives a checkmate on the accusation that Christian are doing good actions only because they are looking for a heavenly reward (as a "carrot" analogy). In contrast, "new atheists" (or even regular, atheist) still insist that morality comes naturality from evolution... In this case the "carrot" would be endorphins in our brain. I've covered the problem of these theory in my channel. Human history shows quite clearly that for thousands of years, the ones that have more chance to reproduced were the more narcissistic types. Thus, it does not make sense to say that virtue could come from there. See "Does our idea of good and evil comes from natural selection?" (5 mn).
Good!
@@missouritravelers I think that morals comes more from logic than instinct. If you the video in the channel you will see that it more like that evolution would selected the more narcissistic ones of us (not otherwise).
@@missouritravelers I'm not talking about a theory here. It what is actually observed in human history. Narcissism and tribalism are very good to survival and reproduction. You can look at the data in the video in my channel.
@@missouritravelers Here we are talking about several slaves (including sexual slaves) and no mercy for the others. Have you seen the video?
@@missouritravelers I'm very interested in criticism. May you can leave your comment there (?).
this is going to be another great video
this channel really taught me stuff i didn't know about the bible, before knowing this channel existed, i was a young earth creationist, but this channel made me change my mind
I am glad I could help.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I have an intresting video for you IP. God bless. ua-cam.com/video/KtMdYJoET-s/v-deo.html
@@seal9390 i have watched that my brother, God bless you too brother!
Still a young earth creationist but this channel is great!
@@isaacunderhill9120 same.
Thanks I have often Mia understood these and played into one or a two of these misconceptions great video Ip!
greetings from Brazil! may God bless you IP
(translated using google tradutor)
hello
@@InspiringPhilosophy Oi Michael, como vai?
E aí rapaziada
@@bielflk Oe
Wow saying that this video is important is an understatement! This content is essential!
This is presented very well..thank you sir for serving mankind with God's truth.
WE LOVE YOU INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY
Love this! I think a great example of this is the Egyptian midwives who were instructed to kill male Hebrew babies on the delivery table. But because they feared God they didn't follow Pharoah's command. When he asked them about this the implication is at least that they lied to him and said that the Hebrew women deliver before the midwives could arrive. Not only does God not punish them for lying, scripture says He blessed them with families of their own because they protected the Hebrew children.
Most ciritcs of New Testament ethics in the circles I am in is of it being "slave morality". I have a friend who is of the belief that Christian ethics inspire weakness as opposed to strength (turn the other cheek type stuff). A few months ago he became a neo pagan and rejected Christianity and abrahamism as a whole as being essentially a psyop to weaken European man. How would you respond to these accusations and the critic of Christianity as slave morality? Rn I am trying to figure out how to convince him out of this stupidity.
There are a lot of similarities between Christian ethics and Stoic ethics. Stoicism was at one point the main philosophy in Rome, thaught in every noble household, and practiced by Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Stoics considered anger to be irrational and a loss of control resulting from wrong beliefs. They valued harmony with the Logos of nature, with society and with one's human rational and social nature. Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote: "no man is free who is not master of himself " and "It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures, but the foolish to be a slave to them" and "Any person capable of angering you becomes your master". Is it not true and alligning with Christian ethics? Is not turning the other cheek just that? This is true freedom, because nothing in the outside world will be able to move your inner self or defeat your soul. Being ruled by your passions is being like an animal, easily manipulated, easily distracted, easily subjugated. This is true slavery.
@@ragaber That was nice!
Most of what this slave morality critique lies in is indeed this deontological conception of Christianity, or the usage of it as a doctrine, to counter that we need to promote a form of virtue ethics. We need to also show him the heroic nature of Christianity, that Christianity had a clear sense of vitality in the past and did produce a type of man that would be able to carry its legacy for over two millennia. Were the Christian kings or heroes born out of a slave morality? No, they were not. It is only through the degradation of modern Civilisation (and other ideological forces preceding it, mind you, that are very critical of Christianity, like liberalism) that we see the appearance of the Last Man.
Is he a teenager who's just read the wikipedia article on Nietzsche?
Another excellent video, Michael! It seems Virtue Ethics is meta level to most everything else!
Thank you
I Love your videos michael!! i was a deontic moralist, thinking that certain things must be moral o inmoral to do, like a law and that these things got me sad because i didn´t know which things were correct to follow or how to mediate them and which things are bad or which things are not bad, like thinking that if talk to someone was a good decition to imitate Jesus. and i was struggling to see what were the limits of that moral duties, and i came to see this video and I learnt about the virtue, the one that Jesus worked, and the one that we must put to work. Thank you very much michael for helping me to leave that dark and anguishing abysm
Well, certain things are and always will be inmoral to do, if they take you further away from god, from love and truth, if they violate the design of the creation.
@@haselstrauch1688 what a wonderful life yo live, isnt it?
@@haselstrauch1688 what a wonderful life yo live, isnt it?
@@evident1472 You are right there brother, it is. God bless you.
This channel and in particular this video is so helpful to me
Thank you
Aristotle and Aquinas should be required reading for all Christians
IP with another certified hood classic! Love your channel bro!
Glad I found this channel. One of the most underrated Apologetics ever. I also have a question, was Yahweh originated from the canaanites? Please make a video off of this thanks!
I was wondering about this quite a while ago. The video "Israel's Revolutionary Monotheism" helped.
Great Video. Makes you rethink all your actions you had.
Good job as always IP ♥️
I am not a chrismated member of the Orthodox Church, I am but an inquirer about to become a Catechumen, but I think virtue ethics comes closest to what Orthodoxy wants of people. The goal of Orthodoxy is theosis, which is both communing with God and becoming like God (mutually reinforcing actions), you do good actions to participate with God, and you do evil actions in participation with the evil one(s). It is neither consequentialism (which implies a normal human’s wisdom can be on par with God), nor deontology (which implies actions are ‘good’ in isolation’. My only problem with virtue ethics is that it bears the implications of a an impersonal God of the hellenists, as well as denying some of the liturgical aspects of reality
I’m not orthodox but theosis is a very good theological framework to understand virtue ethics.
Some miracles
1.Eucharistic miracles
2.Miracles of Lourdes
3.Incorrupt body of St. Francis Xavier, St. Bernadette
4.Liquifaction of blood of St. Janerius
5.Levitation of St Joseph of Cupertino
6.Our Lady of Fatima
7.Conversion of satanic priest Blessed bartolo longo because of Rosary
8.Stigmata of St. Padre Pio, St. Francis of Assisi
9.Lepanto victory due to rosary
10.Our Lady of Velankani
11.Our Lady Of Guadalupe
12.Our Lady of the Pillar
13.Miracles of St. Anthony
Our problem is that, at every opportunity it seems, we distill moral values into another rule, another modal argument. Rules are a reflection of values, not the values themselves, the map *of* the true moral landscape (with a left-handed tip of the cap to Sam Harris), not the landscape itself. In yet another way, the map is not the territory. Excellent and thought-proking vid!
Its still a rule that one ought to be virtuous.
"Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself? Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool. Why should you die before your time? It is good that you should take hold of this, and from that withhold not your hand, for the one who fears God shall come out from both of them."
Solomon talked about virtue ethics, before Aristotle, established virtue ethics
@Prasanth Thomas friend this is not utilitarianism, there is nothing about "morally good actions are those with the most amount of utility" what Solomon is describing is virtue ethics, that there are two extremes to every action and the virtuous thing is the middle path, for example,
In virtue ethics, the vices would be, absolute pacifist, and murderer, you do not want to be an absolute pacifist, what if someone goes and tries to kill you, however, you don't want to be a murderer and kill people, the virtuous thing is, being peaceful but refusing self defense is foolishness
Another example, being lazy or being active all the time, these are vices, being lazy, you're not doing anything, however being active all the time, gets you burnt out and your body will get fatigued eventually. The virtuous thing is to be active however find your rest when you can
That is virtue ethics, Solomon's "there is a time for everything" is a fundamental idea of virtue ethics
@Prasanth Thomas ahhh, I mean I can kinda see that
@Prasanth Thomas yes I know, they would not agree with following the commandments all the time in every situation, they do not believe that morally good things, are not always the right thing to do, hence why they believe in virtue, they would agree with Solomon's prescriptions of "do not be overly righteous lest you destroy yourself, yet do not be overly wicked, why would you die before your time" that is a key fundamental principle in virtue ethics, that morally good things aren't always good in every situation, you need to "wise", that there is a time and a place to right and to do wrong things aka a time to lie, honesty is a virtue where you don't lie because that is a vice, yet you do not want to tell the truth all the time because that can lead to problems,
Solomon in proverbs does say to always seek for wisdom, there's nothing wrong with that, wisdom is a virtue in virtue ethics
Actually, lying is always contrary to virtue because lying goes against the telos of communication, which is to share truth.
What if nazi were to come to your door asking if Jews were hiding in your house?
ua-cam.com/video/OdTpjg467WM/v-deo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy It would still be wrong to lie. You can say nothing, try to distract him, or say something that is vague, ambiguous, or subtly off-topic but not untrue. You could threaten the Nazi, since he is threatening someone under your protection. Indeed, if his attempt to murder is imminent, you may even use violence against him out of self-defense. There is no question that the murderer at your door has no right to the life of the person under your protection.
Still, you cannot lie. Lying is a universal moral evil. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: "An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Ethic. iv, 7) that 'lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.' Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).
"
@@InspiringPhilosophy it seems that the Christian tradition is to put truth as a high value and to face the evil that the truth may trigger.
@@appliedvirtue7731 That is still deceit though. Misleading people from the truth is still lying. You are tricking them to believe something that is false.
@@retrictumrectus1010 Not every deception is a lie. Telling your colleague "I'm fine" even though you've got a headache, a rebellious teenage daughter, and financial problems isn't a lie. Putting on a poker face during a card game or faking out another player during a basketball game isn't a lie. Wearing camouflage during wartime isn't a lie.
Rather, what a lie consists of essentially is willful speech or other communicative behavior contrary to one’s mind. That is to say, one lies when one wills to communicate the message that P when what one really thinks is not-P. But what counts as “communicating the message that P” will depend on the particular circumstances and the conventions of whatever language you use. Broad mental reservations, like the one Jesus employed in John 7:8-10, are not lies. If we say that Jesus lied like tektontv
claimed in the video that IP cited, then we wouldn't be able to call Jesus God, as it says in Titus 1:2 that God cannot lie.
Very interesting - I have been waiting for this video since your hinting last time that something like this was coming.
My unresolved thoughts following a first watch are about what would ground these virtues. For the Christian, they would be the character and nature of God as revealed in his word and creation. I feel as if humans could try to (and often do) construct a system of virtues apart from God’s revelation (Proverbs 14:12) Scripture speaks of performing certain actions, and not inheriting the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9) Some actions that our current cultural moment would consider virtuous. So yes, we all do have some general sense of virtues (Romans 2:14), but yet we have to be instructed what good and true virtues are as fallen humans. Else, it seems as if virtue would be subject to the overriding majority definition of the cultural moment.
I love how when you mentioned “certain things can be a hinderance” you had the bacon frying video on 😂.
Christian Virtue Ethics
Thanks IP! A great video to help in my apologetic for God.
I guess I am not sure how much virtue ethics really fits into Christianity because there are distinct negations within christian ethics that seem to conflict against the notion of Aristotle’s golden mean. Obviously there is some overlap, but I do not find myself looking for virtue ethical philosophy within the New Testament, as it just doesn’t seem to be as robust as Aristotle proposed...
I am not saying the Bible is wrong by the way, only that it isn’t really a virtue ethics text...
Aristotle does not own virtue ethics. Deviations from his ideas does not mean that the bible is not a virtue ethics text. Furthermore, our entire salvation and moral/spiritual development is based on transformation of our essence. Jesus teaches that we are defiled by what is in us, for example. Paul says we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. We are a "new creature". We are born again of spirit. These are all indicative of virtue focused ethics. We transform into a virtuous person over time, sanctified by Christ, and we now work to become that which we are made into by Christ.
@@droe2570 I didn’t say that Aristotle owned VE per se, but I think it’s disingenuous to act as if he is not the foremost thinker/progenitor of the ethical position. It’s like talking about deontology without Kant, or Utilitarianism without Bentham and Mill... even though they do not own the ethical framework, they at least started it and have more credibility on it by virtue of their proximity.
Further, while I agree that deviations from his work do not inherently exclude from VE, the golden mean is not just some idea he had in the peripheries... it’s like the whole basis for the theory, which Michael even addresses in the video! You can’t really get rid of it without some pretty good arguments, which I don’t think the Bible makes if it’s goal was to present a virtue ethical theory.
@@gideonwiley8961 "if it’s goal was to present a virtue ethical theory."
This is a strange notion. The bible is older than Aristotle, after all, though not the NT, of course. It presents a true vision of morality; that is, what does God say is morality. The teachings of Jesus and Paul in the NT do not represent a new teaching of what morality is. Jesus is certainly older than Aristotle, and unless you want to say that Jesus' teaching on virtue and primarily on love as the basis for all morality is derived from Aristotle, then you would have to argue that Jesus is not God.
IP is trying to use Aristotle and others as a means of explaining virtue ethics, not suggesting that the bible is based on Aristotle. After all, Aristotle was not God, his ideas will be flawed. The argument is not that the bible is mimicking Aristotle, but that Aristotle hit on the correct basis, to a degree, of true morality, and that virtue ethics is indeed the correct way, in human terms, of trying to understand morality from God's point of view.
It is Jesus who said that we must be born again of Spirit, and if Jesus is God, then this concept of becoming pure in our essence, that is, becoming "virtuous," is much older than Aristotle.
One of your best videos I think.
The slavery part….so because Paul saw his slave as a “brother” that disregards his ownership of another human being ?
If I kindly may ask have you checked out The God Culture yet? They done videos about the Tower of Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah you may be interested in checking out as well as a complete timeline of the Bible using Jubilees and Yahuah's calender.
Brilliant work, IP. There is a typo in the text under the video, Everything should be, Everyone I think.
A great video. I'm curious if you could touch on the differences between Aristotle's virtue ethics and Thomas Aquinas' modified view of it.
@Prasanth Thomas thanks
It seems that biblical ethics is guided by finding the proper higherarchy of fixed values. The discussion where Jesus and a sage are discussing this, the sage proposes the shema as the highest command or virtue Jesus agrees and ads the levitetical virtue of loving neighbors as self as the second highest. This is the Rabbi Hillel's point as well. In biblical thought the correct application of the highest virtue possible is the goal of ethical living. Ethics requires the biblical axioms properly understood in their relational higherarchy, not situations creating the ethical axioms out of whole cloth. It is the propper application like the good Samaritan parable that places preservation of life over the ritual duties of worship. Without the axioms and a well understood relational higherarchy there is no ethical system. And this isn't dry legal discourse it is relational life focused on how to best love God ourselves and the precious people around us.
Sometimes I wonder if this is what is meant by being made in the Image of God. It certainly helps getting through all the disappointments in a chaotic world, and you get better at it as time goes on and I’ve learnt when I’m wrong or someone else is it starts getting much easier to forgive. It’s much easier to laugh.
I greatly appreciate this video and its timing for me is divinely appointed. However, I'm sure that a rather strong case is also made by those who say NT Christianity teaches a deontic ethic. I'd be curious to see a debate on this subject.
That would be interesting
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:18-19
but what does that mean? What are you teaching me?
Great video!
What about the Bible error in Josua 15
In Evangelical Churchs here we Brasil, instead of focusing in the imitation of Christ and to know and love God, we focuses in what is right and wrong to do. They don't seens to know that a true Christian regenerated by the role spirit will have the necessary wisdon to discern the right and wrong. Of course, this discerniment is constructed between the church, but it should not be the main goal of the Church lissening to say what is wrong or good.
Does anyone believe that this contradicts moral realism? I’m currently unsure of the status (or relevance) since ANY two agents must have a relationship and optimizing the relationship of these agents would require virtues.
It does not contradict moral realism
16:00 I just can't help myself. Amogus.
Question: when it says that "By the Fruit of the Spirit is the virtues"; do you not think that this implies that those virtues are a bi-product of deontological moral commandments? @InspiringPhilosophy Help me shed some light on this. Great channel and great video!!
That would not make sense. The "fruit of the Spirit" is not a commandment, it is a result of the essence or nature of the Spirit.
@inspiringphilophy are you homeschooling with Charlotte Mason? Great cirriculum based on Christain ethics, I feel like you must be, especially with your references here to habit building!
I have an objection against the yoga meditation postures you implement in some of these clips.
I enjoyed this video👍🏽😊
20:41 Regarding context, does this not mean that virtue ethics would devolve into situational ethics? How would this be applied to the classic case of lying as a sin? Is there ever a context in which lying could be virtuous? Such as in the case of aiding Jews and hiding them in Nazi Germany?
Edit: 23:25
In Joshua, Rahab lies about hiding Hebrew spies within the walls of Jericho to protect them from the soldiers.
In the Books of Hebrews and James she is called a woman of faith who did good works and her name is listed amongst the ancestors of Christ in Matthew's genealogy.
Based on that, and my intuition about saving people from other people interested in killing them. it seems like lying is sometimes ok, especially in that sort of circumstance.
Great teaching🙏🙏🙏
So at 23:00 you say that it is never okay to practice idolatry, but yet slavery is still permissible in the new testament so how does follow through chrsitian virtue ethics, unless slavery is not always immoral and in some cases are moral? This video seems like picking and choosing what you like and ignoring everything else to fit a motive
Define slavery?
@pleaseenteraname1103 ay it's my amigo again. Sure
Here, my definition of slavery
"the state of a person who is held in forced servitude." His video on virtue ethics makes no sense. By his logic sexual immorality and worshipping idols are never okay under any circumstances. therefore, the bible has always been against it, yet by that standard slavery isn't. By his logic, idol worship is worse than slavery
@@MohamedAli-nf1rp well I would define it more brodadly but that definition is fine. No history of ethics is basically that we don’t need to be told every single thing that’s wrong in order to know that it’s wrong, we can stand by basic moral principles and come to the conclusion that things are wrong based on those principles. So for instants the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn sex trafficking or slavery but we can know that those two things are wrong based on the principles that we already have. Again it depends on how you define slavery if you define slavery more broadly which was the case and during biblical times and there are cases where it can be justified, in the case of sexual immorality there’s no case and where that could possibly be virtuous and the same goes for idol worshiping. Well based on your definition not necessarily but if you define it more broadly yes.
@@pleaseenteraname1103
"g, we can stand by basic moral principles and come to the conclusion that things are wrong based on those principles"
Yes, I agree I do think we could come to the understanding that slavery is wrong based on principle, I just wished the bible would agree
". Again it depends on how you define slavery if you define slavery more broadly which was the case and during biblical times and there are cases where it can be justified,"
Please point to me where it is justifiable to buy a slave, own him as property, and keep him as a slave for life. I don't know about you but I see slavery as immoral always.
"n the case of sexual immorality there’s no case and where that could possibly be virtuous"
interesting, so you for example don't believe things such as homosexuality, or premarital sex to be virtuous, but sex slaves would somehow not fall into that? since once again the bible permits owning sex slaves and having sex with said slaves.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Can you properly define "slavery" so that the practice is morally acceptable or is your "definition" something only you believe because you have constructed a false definition in your mind that nobody else could find without accessing your personal dictionary? Is that the case? Are you just making up false definitions? If not then provide it so that we can see how YOU define "slavery" so that it is morally acceptable....
Is it still morally acceptable to purchase a person and consider them to be your inheritable property as long as they are not Hebrew, and that you "love" your human property like I "love" my dog...since I love my dog, but my dog is also my legal property...???
To clarify the last question is asking what teaches man that the act of purchasing a person and considering them inheritable property is immoral, or do you believe it is morally acceptable still because the Bible gives a guideline for practicing slavery without ever teaching us it is forbidden?
heaven is about eternal life, not eternal pleasure.
hell is tge pain of being dead, not necessarily a torture chamber. at least, that's what I think.
When I was passing by I noticed an inscription on your altar, to the unknown God, him who you ignorantly worship I declare unto you.
I feel like I agree with the concept here, in that an action being good, or bad is not the whole story of whether you behaved in a good way or not, but the intention behind the action is also important. but I think you overcomplicate it in explaination.
Also due to the over complication I think you may mislead people into thinking that virtue ethics, = subjective morality.
You need to make it clear that Vito's character is the ultimate good to aim at beyond simple rules, because, and not in spite of objective morality.
The virtue of bravery, or courage is good because it allows you to not he subject to fear, and you can do the right thing, even when afraid. It is good to do the right thing even when afraid, in example saving a person from a burning building. Saving someone from a burning building is good, because they are a living person. And that saving someone life is good, because life is a fundamentally good thing. And it goes no deeper than that.
Virtues are good, because they align your character with what is objectively good.
I do think it has lot to do with character build but not to say morality is only dictated to Rules but living up to your character and God is to build yours because Destiny by itself is to come to a end so he forming are Destiny guiding it so it doesn't have a end you can't dictated people of right or wrong because you are only following Rules to means to a end and the Heart has nothing to do with it Destiny needs are Hearts in are character and God so we don't have that means to a end virtues teach something that is meant to give us a direction of what actions to take in that circumstance Where Rules do not they instead reinforce bad things to continue doesn't solve anything including crime forgiveness is a virtues that was not mentioned in this video but very important because without forgiveness we become more evil .
I thought that paul's epistles were influenced by stoics.
isnt christian virtue ethics, basically thomism?
In many ways, yes
You are following Thomas Aquinas
Did I put a comment here somewhere? I forgot.
very interesting, thank you. i'd love to hear your thoughts on homosexuality and female pastors
Sorry for delay in a reply...
Homosexuality can be viewed as ethically acceptable if you force it to be so, but that does not necessarily mean it is beneficial to our species.
Women preaching or teaching in the presence of other male and female members of our species is quite acceptable if she is upholding the Truth of the Creator of our species.
The non-technical answer... :)
I'm surprised that Geisler was a deontologist. He identified as a Thomist and even recommended MacIntyre's work on virtue ethics.
22:24 bookmark
Amen what a beutiful Video !
the ethics are noble but i just cannot bring myself to worship a man as God it goes against my core idea and belief on what and who is God
It's even more fundamental, it's about from death to life. He isn't interested in making us good, but alive.
I would also disagree about the peacekeeping not holding at all times. We should not use the Old Testament to condition the New Testament, rather we read the Old in light of Christ and the New Testament. That is one point of the transfiguration and the Road to Emmaus, the Old Testament is about Christ and is read through the light of Him, the New Testament and the Gospel, explaining it's true meaning. To read it otherwise is to read it with a veil on, not truly reading it at all.
After all, Peter acting in defence of Christ was in defence of the most innocent and goos person that ever existed. If ever to use violence in defense of the innocence were to be justified it was here, but Christ takes the sword out of Peter's hand. And He doesn't say this is not the time for that because the Son of Man must be delivered to the Gentiles to die. No, He reveals a universal truth "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" and so place themselves under death, and serve that which is God's final enemy.
Tertullian said here Christ had taken the sword out of the hand of every soldier with this. Origen in his defense of Christianity against Celsus who complained that Christians wouldn't act to defend the Empire said the Church was an army that shed no blood, but rather was engaged in a spiritual battle.
Soldiers who killed or magistrates ordering an execution were barred from the Eucharist until major repentance and penance.
Christ deepens the truth of the commandment thou shalt not kill to mean just that, that all killing is murder, and will hurt us. It is never virtuous.
The war Christians are called to is not and never against flesh and blood, but against powers and principles, spiritual wickedness in high places. That is the time of war we should be involved in.
I think the bible teaches a combined form of Deontological and virtue ethics. Aristotle didn’t have divine commands from a perfect Omniscient God, therefore virtue ethics was the best he could offer. The bible gives some absolute demands for every people everywhere every time.
What do you think about homossexuality?
ua-cam.com/video/jyVObGmVoIU/v-deo.html
Not a fan
Imagine asking " what do you think of heterosexuality.?"
What about Homosexuality?
Use your reason, there are no simple answers.
Now long monogamous comitted relationship (without marriage) between any 2 genders in the west, unlike many countries (arab and muslim countries) in which legal and religous marriage is like rape physically and emotionally and ethically
@@InspiringPhilosophy it seems to me that the Bible, on this issue, does have a simple answer. Could you expound a little more what you mean?
@@Norbingel homosexuality falls into the category of an action and desire that are not found in the life of a virtuous person such as rape and murder as it is not predicated in love.
@@chaser595 a virtuous person can't have sinful desires?
Astonishing
2:13
Shouldent woman teach?
I mean, i know in the church, but preaching to man can be done by man..
Womans still can teach their kids.
Your way of explaining virtue ethics doesn't escape Mill's utilitarianism. Also, it isn't Aristotelian virtue ethics as his view of eudaimonia is different (you have to read past the first chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics). So, it is a case of special pleading Christian virtue ethics and then then question will arise on why you think flourishing is living in a way glorifying God. This is partly empirical, but when it fails you have a trump card in that you can push everything to after death.
Can you use Christian virtue ethics to read the Biblical texts? Well, yes, some of them. Not all of them.
The bible allowed slavery because the people at the time did not consider it to be immoral.
How do you reconcile that with considering the bible to be a guide for morality?
Based God
@@iancosenza2817 "Based God"...
...I do not understand that reply. Can you clarify what you mean?
I think we could rephrase the question to:
Was there any guideline to morality before the Bible was written?
God allowed things for a time. Its stated many times the covenent and law of sin and death wasnt permanent
@@lancemarchetti8673 Unlike you, I will not be rude and will answer the question you suggest should be asked....Yes... the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the Hebrew Bible gives a guideline to morality...
Your question is pointless...The Bible should not be used as a tool to recognize the morality of actions...
Would you trust a tool to perform a task if that tool could not perform the task consistently?
The Bible teaches us that slavery can be considered morally acceptable without ever teaching us that slavery is forbidden or even unwanted as long as you "love" your slave, and that you do not treat a Hebrew as a slave...
Is it ever morally acceptable to be allowed to purchase people and consider them to be inheritable property?
If all our actions have a moral dimension then isn’t Cosmic Skeptic’s ethical theory valid?
I thought he was a utilitarian.
Danke
A JMac quote 🤯🤣 JK
1. "One could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions, without any love love for the person." No, they couldn't. Love is a choice, not a feeling. Performing right actions to people is the same thing as acting in love to them.
2. The Pharisees didn't act correctly, as Jesus pointed out. They didn't because they didn't love. They thought actions saved them. This doesn't show duty based ethics are wrong, only they didn't do the correct duty (to love God first and others next).
3. I don't think you can do a good job describing what God changes us into without using duty based or virtue based terms. That being said, I can't think of how to define virtue based words without first using duty based words, so it seems to me that duty is primary.
4. It seems that you think many words are virtue based when I'd call them duty based. I could be biased, so that doesn't mean much, other than that it seems there isn't full agreement on the terms we're using.
5. Actions do not do anything for us, in themselves. Actions show what's inside us (see the book of James). The purpose of duty based ethics isn't to save us, it's to show us how to act ethically.
6. Being virtuous doesn't save us. Actions don't save us. Following moral rules doesn't save us.
Ethics is limited in its usefulness so pointing out that following moral rules doesn't fix us isn't surprising.
7. I note you keep avoiding using anything like the term "must" or "have to". You say we are "called", which is just another way to say that those who listen obey. Aren't you just avoiding the terms because they point out that you simply can't do Christianity without recognizing you have a duty to do [X]?
8. You point out that the sermon on the mount includes blessings on virtuous behavior AND duties that you must perform. It seems you can't follow Christ without doing your duty!
9. "The proper action to take ...and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do." No. Absolutely not. The proper action to take is what God commands you to do. Too often Christians do the wrong thing because of what they think is the most "loving" thing is to do, sacrificing God's actual words for their concept of "love". One mustn't murder, ever. One must train your child up in the way they should go even if they think what they must do isn't "kind". One mustn't commit adultery, ever. The reason why this is true isn't because they don't flow from virtuous character, but because you cannot be virtuous and do these things!
10. I am not claiming that Christianity doesn't require one to be virtuous. That being said, it does require us to do our duty to be moral. And, regardless of all of that, a requirement to be virtuous IS a duty!
Well, tell me Michael, would it be moral for me to move in with my girlfriend(If I had one)?
I mean, if you're right about this it could very well be. Which would make Christianity more appealing and less restrictive for a lot of people.
You said we're supposed to use our reason when it comes to sexuality, right? Well, if two people love and care for each other, and are not married, can't they have sex?
Under virtue ethics, isn't it the case that as long as you don't exploit, harm, or decieve people that you can make love to whoever can consent?
The argument you offer against Christian pacifism is inappropriate and incorrect. We are called to be peacemakers in the deepest and fullest sense, such that even our enemies we may not hate or wage war against. Christ explicitly commanded, in this very context, that we are to love our enemies, and he gave us his example of laying down his own life rather than taking up arms against his enemies who were intending to kill him and actually did so.
There is a time for war, but there is no time for the good and virtuous to wage war and kill their enemies. There is a significant amount of teaching and law and doctrine concerning this, that is based on the notion that each human being is a son of God and is made in the image of God and is marked by God, such that his life may not be taken, even when he takes the life of his brother, as taught in Gen. 1:26-28 and Gen. 4. This status of men is to distinguish them from animals that kill for various reasons or justifications: man is not to become a beast, oppressing and killing his brothers, rather, he is to master the beast of sin and rule it, that he may not become that beast. That beast of sin enslaves people and makes them beasts, and Christ taught us how to respond to beasts: with love and goodness and forgiveness, rather than going to war against them. Being a peacemaker means transforming enemies into friends, and beasts into men, not by shedding their blood but by using our intelligence and virtue and wisdom to propagate the kingdom of God and to mitigate our damages without inflicting damage on others, for love does no harm to another (Rom. 13:8-10).
The approach you take here is actually legalistic, rather than virtue ethics. The legalistic approach says that we may have legal exceptions or rules permitting or justifying, for example, taking human life, whether for murder or other offences, or whether for necessity or justification such as self defense or 'just war.' We then can pat ourselves on the back every time we have a legal exception or justification for taking human life but we, by supererogatory works, find a way to deal with the problem without taking human life. Yet, you take this even further, claiming that it may be virtuous to shed human blood -- to your shame! The true virtue ethics of Christianity says that we must demonstrate gentleness and non-violence and self-sacrificing love and peacemaking and respect for human life always and at all times. A virtuous Christian may never spot his hands with human blood.
The time for war that Christ spoke of was the time of great lawlessness and disorder and rebellion and deception and apostasy when Israel rejected the way of peace. Christ came to bring not peace to the land of Israel, but a sword (Mat. 10:34) and division (Luke 12:51). Yet, Christ brought peace to Israel, the peace she would not accept, but was hidden from their eyes, because they did not know the time of her visitation of peace (Luke 19:41-44). This division and war was not treated, therefore, as endorsed or celebrated, rather it was to be mourned (Luke 19:41 cf. Rom. 9:1-5,22,27-28).
So u believe lets say we roll time back to the third reich. That the brits shouldnt have retaileated in blitzkreig.
Let innocent blood be shed. Immagine the world today had good men not stood in evils way.
What christ was saying is to not hate are enimeis pray for them.
That tells me that he is humanising them.
Teaching war creates pain.
No christian no human should desire war.
But war is nessesary in evil.
Wonder what the world would be today. If america hadnt retailiated. Against britian.
144,000 All light workers we need to sign the liberation petition for our planet with Gaia mother earth. If you can't write while your astro projected, just say it to her. NOW The portal is open. On the 21st meditate with intention to employ to procreate, activate the trigger for light loving beings for divine intervention. THIS HAS TO BE DONE OR THEY WILL NOT HELP US. People who are not light workers yet, you can do this! Status is not required, pure intent is required.God I hope I reach them all. Please help us restore humanity.
~~~
Another example of your eisegesis to support virtue ethics by misusing the biblical texts is misreading the Sermon on the Mount as containing 'sections on proper desires' and then quotes Mat. 5:22 as if it said 'Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder.' This is not what the text says, nor what it means. The text states that the one who is angry with his brother will be 'liable to judgement.' In context, this is a repeat of the Mosaic judgement of murder, which is the death penalty -- although the death penalty was not to be applied as the procedural requirements put it out of reach (e.g. Deut. 17:6-7), and the policy was for human life to be marked by God as in his image and not liable to the death penalty even if guilty of murder (Gen. 4). So, in context, the Lord is not talking about the sins so much as the legal responses or judgement for different sins.
The Lord's point is to say that angry words, like calling someone 'Fool!' will lead to the legal judgements and even the death penalty that Moses prescribed but also put out of reach, and that was to be applied to him when he called the Scribes and the Pharisees 'Blind Fools!' (Mat. 23:17), and his body was in danger of dishonorable disposal in Gehenna, a fate he was saved from by Joseph of Arimathea (Mat. 27:57-60). This, then, addresses the Lord's real point about the death penalty: it was a danger not to murderers (like Barabbas who was released), but rather for those who challenged the politically powerful with angry or disrespectful words (e.g. treason or sedition or tax-protest teaching, which the Lord was charged with in Luke 23:1-2). This is, in fact the background for the use of the death penalty in the biblical teaching, e.g. the Sons of God Mighty Men war lords in Gen. 6 are political 'beasts' that use death to acquire and maintain and expand political power, which is why they were wiped out and why a Second Flood judgement was promised against the beasts in the future (Gen. 9:5-6). Political power and legal power is also applied against angry or disrespectful words by means of defamation law which works by acquiring money judgements against those who speak truth to power or otherwise challenge the well connected, as the Lord mentioned in the context of Mat. 5:22, specifically in Mat. 5:23-26.
None of this analysis matters to Michael Jones who has simply read in his assumptions and desired teaching that the Lord is discussing the desires that we have when we do good or bad things. No, Michael, that is not what this text is about, and not what it says. What happened to reading the texts in their historical and cultural context, including the legal and political context, and the context of Matthew's gospel which features the Lord calling them fools who put him to death with the power of their state?
Bro u are not making any sense
Why should one glorify God? Why should one live a flourishing life? In the end Christian ethics is still deontological. God is the concept of good, so whatever he communicates to us as good is good. Simple. Just accept that slavery and the subjugation of women is not wrong according to the bible instead of being self righteous. You have fallen far from when you acknowledged God as the source of good in your early videos on morality. What a shame.
@@JM-19-86 how can good be grounded in God without him communicating to us what is good? Isn't that the same as subjective morality? And the Bible does not consider subjugation women to be bad. So if I were to believe the Bible it would be consistent to believe that if the Bible is the inspired word of God, that therefore subjugation women isnt bad.
Moreover, how would me thinking that despite all this, subjugaying women is wrong mean that that idea somehow came from The One True God™?
I usually like this channel, but this isn't right. Virtue Ethics begins with Aristotle, not God, flows through Aquinas to MacIntyre et al., and in modern times, is Catholic. The biblical ethic is relational, based in the character of God Himself, and is powered by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. It is not focused on inducing people just to try harder to pursue a set of Greek-style virtues. So I'm sorry, but this is not correct, and not really biblical. I hope your next video will be back on track. Best wishes.
Hence Christian Virtue Ethics
I never said it was based on inducing people to try harder to pursue a set of Greek-style virtue. I focused on the virtues the New Testament promotes, which were different, as I said in the last section.