Talk:Christian hedonism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll try to incorporate some information from this article too. http://www.thefaithfulword.org/cathedonism.html EKN 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great, EKN.--ViolinGirl♪ 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expanding 

message: 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)
thread_title:  should expand more on the idea, however.... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removal of POV wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please continue negotiating, emphasize information from reliable sources. Fred Bauder 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted Censorship 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Randian Objectivism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethical Egoism relationship