Do Christians follow pagan morality?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NoelFitz

New member
Did Jesus bring a new morality/ethics or not. Sometimes it seems Christian morality is based on Greek classical ideas, with the views of Plato and Aristotle being foremost. Christians aim to practise the cardinal virtues of justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance, as well as striving to live with moderation. I admit Christians followed the Jewish idea of rejecting homosexuality, but in general the best pagan morality is the ideal.

Christian’s hold we are not saved by good works, but by the gratuitous gift of God, which does not depend on us. Even though we cannot gain merit by our actions, we can sin mortally.

Constantly I am aware of the possibility of hell, so how we live our lives is important for me.

I believe we should do good and avoid evil, remembering Paul’s advice to Titus ‘I want you to insist on these points, that those who have believed in God be careful to devote themselves to good works; these are excellent and beneficial to others (Tit 3:8).

Do you agree that Christian ethics/morality are based on classical ones, and Jesus did not overturn these? Also, should we try to do good, even though good works alone do not save us?

Please let me know your views.
 
I’m not sure he brought a “new morality”, but in my opinion he brought a statement of truth to the morality that the Father gave man when he was created in His image.

So, while following pagan practices and beliefs might be objectionable, following the positive aspects of pagan morality that echo the truth of God’s design do not.

But, obviously, there may be some aspects of morality unique to paganism that do not fall into this category.
 
As long ago as the 1880s Edwin Hatch addressed this question, though in rather broader terms, in his book The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. Hatch was a 19th century Oxford professor whose specialty was the Greek OT, but – quite apart from the Hatch-Redpath concordance to the Septuagint – he left several books which have the great merit (for me, at least) of being written in a lively, even entertaining, style. Here, for instance, is the opening paragraph of this one:

It is impossible for anyone, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers.

 
Last edited:
Homm

Thanks. Essentially we agree. I noted that homosexuality was accepted by pagans, not by Christians. But in general Greek gentiles and Christians share morality, perhaps due to the natural law being given to all. But some practices (e.g. monogamy) shared by Greeks and Christians are not shared by all societies.

CCHcolonel

we agree.
 
In a sense, basic moral tenets are pretty obvious and easy to figure out for yourself (lying, stealing, and murder are bad).
Therefore, it’s not too surprising that the pagans often got it right in their moral codes.
We Christians believe that Jesus took it even higher, that we need to be pure in our hearts and minds, as well as in our outward actions (ie it’s not enough to not murder—we’re not even allowed to hold a grudge).
 
Last edited:
Opposite:
Greek thought and religion, Islamic thought and religion, all secular cult(ure)s actually “devolved” from their single ancestry in Ham, Shem, and Japheth, the Sons of Noah, and to him from the single patriarch, Adam, through his sons, Cain and Seth, et al, to the flood.

All the nations at the time of the Patriarchs knew of YHWH (the LORD), but with time and without contact and love for the LORD, they gave up the actual knowing of Him for imaginations of what he is and invented variations of Him and invented replacements for him.

There have occasionally been wise men, such as Plato and Aristotle, who looked closely at reality and sought to describe it “as it actually is”, which is what God did with Israel - he revealed “what is”, including especially Himself. His requirements of Virtue, of the sacrifices he “really desires”, of the fasting he “really desires”, are close to the virtues of the Greek philosophers, because they were, in a way, humbly honest about looking at “what is”, and rejecting false assertions that grew in the past.

Even today, philosophy has returned to the “devolution” that cult(ure)s routinely and non-reasonably take, and it today has given up the hard fought teachings of the great Greek thinkers, as well as the revealed knowing of the Church.

But it is in no way surprising that all who began from a single source would have some similarities in their understandings, even though they have invented deviations and changes and innovations.

John Martin
 
Last edited:
I think Paul and the other NT authors demonstrate in their writings a continuity with the moral law presented in the OT and that there is a continuity between OT and NT on how we are justified before God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top