2 edits
@Suzianne saidGood post Suzianne.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vertical-morality-maga-christians_l_68dc8386e4b0b11989f00fb8
‘Vertical Morality’ Might Describe Why MAGA Christians Seem So Unchristian
This framework reveals why some MAGA-aligned Christians act in ways that contradict Jesus’ teachings.
By Caroline Bologna
Oct 6, 2025, 07:00 AM EDT
Updated Oct 6, 2025
For many America ...[text shortened]... ers.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vertical-morality-maga-christians_l_68dc8386e4b0b11989f00fb8
My personal opinion is that vertical morality today is mostly a lie, is from Satan, And, it is one way that Satan uses to mislead people to follow him and his teachings, instead of the teachings of Christ A.K.A. God.
Satan is always twisting the meaning of the Word of God; and that is what Satan tempted Jesus with in the wilderness; a twisted interpretation of the Word of God. Jesus said "to first clean the inside of the cup (horizontal morality; the teachings of Jesus) then the outside of the cup will be clean also" (vertical morality). My opinion 'off the cuff.'
Thoughts?
@KingDavid403 saidIndeed. The thrust of the article is that if we follow the old vertical morality framework, we can easily forget the importance of our fellow man in our journey to God, but if we recognize a horizontal morality framework, we immediately recognize that Jesus was pointing to our fellow man as a reason and a purpose to follow His teachings. We cannot make the long journey to God on our own, part of that journey is to help others find the same path (the narrow path) to Jesus and thus to God.
Good post Suzianne.
My personal opinion is that vertical morality today is mostly a lie, is from Satan, And, it is one way that Satan uses to mislead people to follow him and his teachings, instead of the teachings of Christ A.K.A. God.
Satan is always twisting the meaning of the Word of God; and that is what Satan tempted Jesus with in the wil ...[text shortened]... outside of the cup will be clean also" (vertical morality). My opinion 'off the cuff.'
Thoughts?
No, it's not always easy, but the benefit is immense.
@Suzianne saidI think of "morality" as being related to "mores" and therefore related to social contracts and folkways -- and therefore while not necessarily arbitrary (given development over time), still potentially variable among different groups and populations.
Morality is not "arbitrary".
It is, or it isn't.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidWasn't that a primary issue between The Nazarene and the authority figures of that time and locale?
That is all fine and good but I asked you, what I asked you. You think an authority figures should not enforce laws as written?
Just now I did a quick search for "Pharisees vs Sadducees" in Firefox, and I think this LLM-generated summary (maybe by Google's Gemini?) is still relevant today, and worthy of consideration regarding our current circumstances:
"The main difference is that the Pharisees were more mainstream, believed in the supernatural (like angels and resurrection), and valued both the Written and Oral Law, while the Sadducees were an aristocratic group that rejected the supernatural, believed only in the Written Law, and held political power through the Sanhedrin and their alliance with the Romans. The Pharisees represented the middle class and the common people, emphasizing religious and social justice, whereas the Sadducees were the wealthy elite focused on preserving temple rituals and political stability."
@KellyJay saidI would cite the parable of the angry mob which brought before Jesus a woman accused of adultery, fully prepared to execute the law which was in effect at that time and place, namely to stone her to death. Jesus famously says to the mob, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' and no one dares to cast a stone. Only the most superficial reading of this parable draws the conclusion that everyone is a sinner. A deeper reading of the parable notes that Jesus, who was without sin, also cast no stone. Jesus merely admonishes the woman to go back to her husband and stop fornicating.
That is all fine and good but I asked you, what I asked you. You think an authority figures should not enforce laws as written?
So, to answer your question, no, authority should not stop people from sinning, nor punish them for their sins. Do as your Savior did by setting the example of righteousness.
@moonbus saidHe desires mercy, not condemnation, but the same scripture that tells us we are all sinners and are already condemned. It also says that the offer of forgiveness comes from Him. Yet people love their sins more than God.
I would cite the parable of the angry mob which brought before Jesus a woman accused of adultery, fully prepared to execute the law which was in effect at that time and place, namely to stone her to death. Jesus famously says to the mob, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' and no one dares to cast a stone. Only the most superficial reading of this parable draws ...[text shortened]... ning, nor punish them for their sins. Do as your Savior did by setting the example of righteousness.
John 3:17-19
English Standard Version
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
@Arkturos
"The main difference is that the Pharisees were more mainstream, believed in the supernatural (like angels and resurrection), and valued both the Written and Oral Law, while the Sadducees were an aristocratic group that rejected the supernatural, believed only in the Written Law, and held political power through the Sanhedrin and their alliance with the Romans. The Pharisees represented the middle class and the common people, emphasizing religious and social justice, whereas the Sadducees were the wealthy elite focused on preserving temple rituals and political stability."
Both of them were hidebound formalists, and Jesus preached against both of them. By 'formalists' I mean that they preached that one must follow the letter of the law (chiefly the Torah), which included all manner of ludicrous prescriptions about hygiene and diet and clothing (not to wear cloth woven of two different materials, not to eat dairy and meat products together, etc. etc.). To get an idea of just how ludicrous these prescriptions were, I recommend the book "The Year of Living Biblicaly"--it details someone's attempt to follow the letter of the Jewish law, as it was in the time of Jesus; it's hilarious.
@moonbus saidThey also added to the law with their traditions.
@Arkturos
[b]"The main difference is that the Pharisees were more mainstream, believed in the supernatural (like angels and resurrection), and valued both the Written and Oral Law, while the Sadducees were an aristocratic group that rejected the supernatural, believed only in the Written Law, and held political power through the Sanhedrin and their alliance with the Romans. ...[text shortened]... ne's attempt to follow the letter of the Jewish law, as it was in the time of Jesus; it's hilarious.