Talk:Christian hedonism

Notes

It looks like the Hedonism article already has some information about Christian Hedonism (halfway into this section; maybe we can use some of what's there? And to start brainstorming how the article will look sooner or later, I'm thinking that we'll need something along the lines of a roots/history section, a beliefs/doctrine section, and something along the lines of a "criticisms" section. *stretches* Anyway, it's so great to see this a blue link, finally! ^_^ Weien 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mm, yeah...somehow I forgot to consult the hedonism article before creating this one...I'm avidly trying to finish a blog entry tonight, and I don't know if I'm going to be on next week...but we shall see, I'll be thinking on how to work it in, since it looks good for this article (or, at least parts of it do). Thanks for looking at it for me!--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to incorporate some information from this article too. http://www.thefaithfulword.org/cathedonism.html EKN 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

Sounds great, EKN.--ViolinGirl^♪ 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Dispute

No strong criticisms of Christian hedonism are given; the only criticisms appear to be taken from Piper's book and accompanied by his defences.

Kant

Perhaps the wording of the Kant reference should be cleared up a little: First off, Kant's deontological ethics ("duty [...] which embraces nothing charming nor insinuating, but requires submission") - while widely appreciated by scholars - aren't, to the best of my knowledge, a basis for the ethical stances of any mainstream Christian denominations (It's often said - though I can't find a source - that Kant marks the point where philosophy and theology, which had once been largely one and the same, finally diverged). Rather than just cover the deontological objection to hedonism, it might be a bit more enlightening to cover a broader range of theological objections within the wider context of the article.

Personally, I'm woefully uninformed about Christian Hedonism, which is why I'm commenting here rather than taking it upon myself to edit this myself. I look forward to seeing the article once it's more expanded. Idp 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh..well, I would expand, but real life has caught up to me. Someone else feel like adopting this little baby for yourself? Maybe sometime when I've less to do. I mean, obviously, I'm going to edit it further. I just can't see anything major happening within the next five months from me...--ViolinGirl^♪ 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This remark seems to be based on a quote by Dr. John Piper:

"Christian hedonism aims to replace a Kantian morality with a biblical one. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who died in 1804, was the most powerful exponent of the notion that the moral value of an act decreases as we aim to derive any benefit from it. Acts are good if the doer is 'disinterested.' We should do the good because it is good. Any motivation to seek joy or reward corrupts the act. Cynically, perhaps, but not without warrant, the novelist Ayn Rand captured the spirit of Kant's ethic:

"An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual. A benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.)

"Against this Kantian morality (which has passed as Christian for too long!), we must herald the unabashedly hedonistic biblical morality."

I'm guessing that, since this is based primarily on a quote from the main "proponent" of Christian Hedonism, there's probably POV issues with presenting it as objective fact. Perhaps a citation is more in keeping with the NPOV requirements here? -- Travisseitler 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Travisseitler. It's been a while since I worked on the article, but *scratches head* as far as I can remember, I worked up the original text myself, instead of rephrasing stuff from the site you mentioned. As for now, I think that the article in general looks better and maybe is more NPOV? I'm not sure though.--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read through a significant amount of the publications on Christian Hedonism (pro and con), I have not yet found anyone who objects to it based on a Kantian stance. So far as I have been able to determine, only Dr. John Piper (the one who came up with Christian Hedonism) asserts that people reject his philosophy because of Kant. I think Piper is mistaken in this. Most objections actually seem to be grounded on the basis that Piper makes pleasure (hedonism) a massive concern but that the Bible only gives pleasure a mere glancing and negative notice. I would be comfortable with removing the phrase that refers to Kant.Wikifish7 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I also do not understand why this article places such an emphasis on Kant's deontology. Discounting Kant's view of ethics really has nothing to do with establishing Christian Hedonism. There are many other prominent theories on what constitutes 'Good', such as Aristotle's or Aquinas'. And from what I have seen, the content of Christian Hedonism seems to be closely related to the ethical theory of John Locke, if anything I would think Locke's theory should be mentioned. I also think that this section contains excessive quotation, and the Lewis one is especially out of place as he was never a proponent of 'Christian Hedonism.' Ccehlers 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Why is the page being changed back when I edit it? Im posting nothing but articles that relate to it by John Piper himself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.46.9 (talk • contribs)

Expanding

Ok, so it says its a stub, and to expand on it. So i expanded. I dont understand. What kind of site is this?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.46.9 (talk • contribs)

Hey there 71.91.46.9; thanks for your attention to this page. I think the reason why your addition of an article by John Piper was deleted (changed back) is due to the fact that the word-for-word pasting of material from another source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. As for the links you put up that also were deleted, they seem to have been in the wrong format. Links as you intended to add should be put in an External Link(s) section. Have a look at some other articles here to see where that section should be and how the links should be formatted. Hope this helps, and if you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. ^^ Weien 00:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

should expand more on the idea, however....

It should also state that most Christians are opposed to it. I'm not a Christian myself, in fact I've been a Deist since the age of 12, but Christianity for me still holds value in the values of Stoicism that it promotes, personally I feel that shifting these values to support ones own rather shaky moral ground is rather pointless, people can be a Christian or they can be a Hedonist, the two are mutually exclusive.

Hedonists also tend to have a great love for Modernism, including, but not limited to, such perverse artforms as Modern Music and Modern and Post-Modern Art.

I think you have an unclear concept of christian hedonism. Hedonism and christianity can coexist, as long as this pleasure is pursued in God, and by following his commands, which give ultimate satisfaction in life.I recommend you read John Piper's books; they ALL focus uppon this view. Sure, most Christians are opposed, because of the mentality passed over by the previous christians, whose philosophies delt mostly with suffering, trials, sin, punishment, etc.-Pentecost 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Penecost wrote: "Sure, most Christians are opposed, because of the mentality passed over by the previous christians, whose philosophies delt mostly with suffering, trials, sin, punishment, etc." I do not believe that the writings I have read objecting to Christian hedonism give the same reason for disagreement as you have cited. Most of the objections seem to center on the notion that the phrase "pursue pleasure" (in anything or anyone) simply is absent from the Bible at all. The articles I have read indicate that "pursue pleasure in God" is not even a command much less one of highest priority. Most of the objections I have seen are that Piper has created an undue emphasis on pleasure. Recall that Jesus said the greatest of all commands was "love God." I would be cautious about citing reasons why people object to Piper without adequate research that would confirm such opinions. Wikifish7 - October 30, 2006

---

removal of POV wording

i changed "Apologists for Christian hedonism..." to "Advocates of Christian hedonism...", because i think the word "apologists" has negative connotations, adding POV. hope folks agree. Murderbike 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted Censorship

Whoutz deleted and rewrote the entire article, censoring out all but biased and positive comments unabashadly promoting hedonism. This is evidenced by new wording such as hedonism "is a sound biblical concept" and POV comments such as "many confuse Christian Hedonism with hypocricy and mistakenly believe..." without references to support the biased comments. He has also deleted all links to references and sites which evaluate or question the validity of the Christian hedonism. This type of censorship would appear to be more than simple presentation of the fact that multiple perspectives exist, but a suppression of the same. Rather than attempt to add back all the links and thoughtful edits of the contributors over the past year, I am reverting the article back to February 11, 2007. If Whoutz would like to add to that article, explaining why Christian Hedonsim is beyond fault, fine, but censorship should not be permitted. Wikifish7 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifish7 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

The links weren't credible, so I replaced them with direct links to Christian Hedonism by John Piper. The previous revision was biased and had weasel words, and needed to be rewritten to accurately describe Christian Hedonism. I have included several direct quotes from the reference page. Its more important to get an accurate description, and after it has been well described, a criticism section could be considered. My quotations from Rand and Kant are important to understanding hedonism. Wyatt 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested moderation of this page by an administrator. Please be careful with your revisions. thx Wyatt 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please continue negotiating, emphasize information from reliable sources. Fred Bauder 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As the Wiki guidelines suggest, editing is open, and ego is to be avoided. As I pointed out earlier, the text you wrote contains unsupported assertions which appear to be value judgements. I have no intention of getting into an editing war and have left your re-reverted version. I have revised some of the most obvious POV words (e.g. the claim that hedonism is a "sound biblical concept" when in fact that is highly debateable) with the more factual statement that it is a philosophy. I would encourage you to find valid references to support your comments that "many Christians" are "confused" by hedonism and think Piper disregards the Bible--in fact I have not seen one credible article which states such things. In fact, most of the credible articles bringing issue with Christian hedonism highlight the fact that hedonism is unbalanced in its emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure. All the best to you. Wikifish7 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In reformed theology, this is a sound concept and endorsed by many reformed theologians such as DA Carson and Trinity International University. So i'm sure it could be worded better. Wiki's guidelines requires no original research, so its important to quote reliable resources such as desiring god, for accurate information. Granted, my addition is to be improved upon, not reverted. Wyatt 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Randian Objectivism

I do not understand how Christian Hedonism is "in opposition to the Objectivism of Ayn Rand," or how the Piper quote is a disagreement with Objectivism. On the contrary, Objectivism agrees with Piper in condemning disinterested morality, and in affirming that morality indeed rationally self-interested. I think Rand would have praised the Christian who moved from Kantian ethics to Christian Hedonism. The only opposition I can see is that Rand was an atheist and so disagreed on the source of ethics, but I don't see how the ethic itself is any different. Jgompert (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the bibliography of the article: Rand's collection of essays was For the New Intellectual, not For the Intellectual, as is cited. 45750born (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A little late, but I agree. Rand was vociferously opposed to morality for the sake of duty -- she blamed this mode of thinking on Kant, and made exactly the same argument Piper's making here -- that it is incoherent to envision morality as something that can only occur when one does not want to do the right thing. I'm going to delete that portion. Ungtss (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

I know Piper coined the term, but has anyone else done any significant work in this area? It would be great if we could find some other proponents of Christian Hedonism and add their perspectives--otherwise this article could probably just be merged into John Piper. It would also be good to expand the criticism section with some cited information on how this philosophy is received by other leading theologians and scholars who may not agree with Piper. I will add any information I can as I come across it in my reading. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethical Egoism relationship

Piper seems to be based on Ayn Rand, who is considered an ethical egoist. I believe Christian hedonism could be classified as a form of universal ethical hedonism. However, I don't see sources comparing or contrasting the two. If anyone could find such a source, it would be great for this article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)