Jenyar, you must differentiate between the motive of the virtue(faith and love etc.) and the actions associated with the virtue. The motive of the virtue has alot of value, infinitely more than anything material. Yet since the action typically resides within the material realm someone could claim that the action does not. I don't think this true though.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do you sense your own belief?
- Thread starter SkippingStones
- Start date
Paul the christian had the influences of Atristotlean ideals.Jenyar said:Aquinas was working from within a Platonic-Aristotelian framework, where ideals were realities. We don't operate within that framework anymore, therefore what he said seems strangely... judgmental.
You reformatted the same question - Whether the Non-christian have the virtue that could be passed as a virtue with inherent worth ?Maybe the solution is that non-Christians should supply the context in which they see virtue, define its worth according to their "weltanschaung". Does virtue have any intrinsic value in their scheme of things?
Virtue and its source-the God are common for everyone.
May be, Okinrus pointed out, the actions might be different because of religious influence but that is not a significant enough difference to reject it as a non-virtue.
Okinrus :
If you believe that someone is limited the good they can do--this could be for various reasons(from experience I know that I'm limited)--how will that person come to believe this without trying? And if they come to believe they are, then hopefuly God will reveal what is wrong.
The question is same. Why do you think non-christians are not trying ? They too (theists) knew their limitations and lookup for God.
Yes, Paul definitely shows influence by Plato, but he redeployed those ideas masterfully. They weren't the substance of his reasoning, just a means.everneo said:Paul the christian had the influences of Atristotlean ideals.
Valid point. Christians are often acused of having an alternate agenda when exercising morals, specifically for this reason. Having God as an encouragement for moral behaviour is seen as somehow... less sincere. But that's why I posed the question: is moral behaviour for the sake of moral behaviour really a "purer" ideal? Does virtue have a place in the purely natural world, except for the natural benefits that could be reaped from "good" behaviour in this material realm?okinrus said:Jenyar, you must differentiate between the motive of the virtue(faith and love etc.) and the actions associated with the virtue. The motive of the virtue has alot of value, infinitely more than anything material. Yet since the action typically resides within the material realm someone could claim that the action does not. I don't think this true though.
Are Christians more moral because we choose to "store up our treasures in heaven"? I don't think so. Are non-Christians less moral for not believing in a heavenly realm? Of course not. But what about the moral deed itself? What determines its value? The mere quality of selflessness doesn't give it meaning. If the giver determines its value, it is a selfish and completely subjective act; if the receiver determines its value, it is an unnatural act (since nature favours the initiative); if nature determines its value, it is not a virtue, but an instinct! And if it is an instinct, once again we have to know: where does it get its force? Why is a moral act so often contrary to "nature"? Each of these things are visible, but they can't all be definitive.
Last edited: