Christianity is not ethical

[varkam]

I'm not intending to flame - honest. I think that people who strongly abide by J-C normative ethics are simply not being ethical, period. That's not to say Christians are unethical (as the vast majority of them, like the rest of us try to do good), but that if one abides by Christian ethical theory, then one cannot claim moral superiority.

My basic idea is this - Christianity cannot provide an adequate reason for why someone should be moral. Sure there are several things you should to (because you'll get into heaven), but more strikingly, there are things you should not do (because you'll go to hell). The only way to be moral is to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, and no other reason (not a very compelling reason, I know). But the simple fact of the matter is this; if you help someone because you believe they will do something good for you in return, that's not being moral - that's bribery. Likewise, if you do something good because you are afraid of negative consequences, that's not being moral either - that's being threatened.

I'm not saying that Christianity is as morally bankrupt as a methadone clinic, as anything that keeps people from shooting one another (a co-worker of mine says all that's keeping her from bringing and Uzi to work is God) is typically a good thing. What I am saying is that if someone abides by J-C normative ethics, they cannot claim the moral high ground.

[RoyGBiv]

1. Nonsense ...

Your entire argument is based on a non-Christian standard of ethics. As such, it has no basis as a valid critique.

[varkam]

3. I fail to see

How that is true. Care to explain a bit more?

[RC]

17. You are saying it has to be based on a Christian standard of ethics

to be valid? If so, Hogwash!

Pay attention to what the bu$h administration is doing. He claims a direct line to God. How ethical is bu$h? Not very.

"Christians", even "Real Christians" use any and all parts of their version of the Bible, except for the first 4 books of the New Testament, to justify whatever it is they want to justify.

Jesus Christ was a Jew, obeying Jewish Law. He was a Liberal, helping who ever needed and excepted his help. He was a Hippie in dress and life style. He may have been a homosexual. His only woman friend was local hooker. Does this sound like your average Christian?

Judging from it's history of bloody wars against non-Christians and even other Christians with a different view point, Christianity is a poor choice to be basing standards of ethics on.

[RoyGBiv]

39. Yes ...

I am accusing the original poster of building a convenient strawman and tearing it down.

The OP's critique is ostensibly a critique of Christian ethics, yet it does not consider Christian ethics in the critique, rather the OP's personal perception of those ethics.

A notable line is this: "Christianity cannot provide an adequate reason for why someone should be moral." The argument to support that is based on an idea that is not fundamental to Christian philosophy as a whole. Certain sects of Christianity emphasize the whole "you'll burn in hell if you don't do this ..." sort of thinking, but that's not a core component of Christian philosophy.

[Zhade]

46. I'm a little confused (maybe not a surprise)...

...are you suggesting that Christian ethics are somehow different than secular ethics?

[RoyGBiv]

50. Nope ...

I was making a comment on the argument itself, as I tried to explain in a follow-up.

Put yet another way, the OP cherry-picked elements of specific Christian ethical variants to criticize that could be easily criticized and subsequently declared the entire philosophy as inherently amoral because of those elements.

As a casual analogy, this is somewhat like declaring Marxism is bad because Stalin was a brutal dictator.

[McKenzie]

2. this'll generate yet another pointless exchange of opinions

the issue of whether Christianity is, or is not, ethical might be a very interesting subject. Philosophical discussions are always of great interest, to me at least.

However, we waste time by getting into heated debates with each other about issues that do nothing to alter the perspective of either side and everything to generate yet more bad feeling. The real enemy is laughing at us, while we bicker like children in a school playground.

I suggest all DU'ers ignore small differences and concentrate on the real battle; the latter is a little more important than debating the finer points of whether any given faith is ethical.

[varkam]

4. Is pointing out...

the possibility that one of the most pervasive religions in the western world is unethical a "finer point"?

[Zhade]

47. I think the parts about bribery and being threatened are well-considered.

What's more moral: doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do, or doing it out of hope for a reward/fear of retribution?

That's not to say that all Christians operate within that framework, of course. I find that the more liberal the person, the less that dichotomy plays out.

[heidler1]

80. IMO ethics is not the problem with Christianity, but claiming that if you

believe the door is open which implies that a person can turn belief on and off at will. To me this is a lie. How can a person fake belief and fool a God who knows everything. If a persons mind sees flaws in the Dogma that he/she cannot ignore is that person then cursed into never believing and so doomed to end in Hell? If some people are born pre-cursed that way the scheme sucks. Calvin was supposed to believe in this destiny idea.

[beam me up scottie]

81. I was born "pre-cursed".

Eh, it's not so bad.:shrug:

[heidler1]

110. So was I. However, I prefere that to being oblivious.

[beam me up scottie]

120. Personally, I prefer to use spell check before attempting to be snide.

Why are some believers so threatened by those who have rejected superstition?

Skeptics and atheists aren't oblivious, quite the opposite, actually.

We are aware of supernatural beliefs but cannot subscribe to them without evidence.



Magical thinking is nothing to feel superior about.

[heidler1]

134. I'm on your side, but my response could have been taken the way that

you took it. My bad.

[beam me up scottie]

135. Oops.

Claws retracted.

Please accept my humble apology.

I'm used to battling atheist stereotypes and I have difficulty interpreting intent in this forum.:banghead:

[rucky]

5. What was in it for Jesus?

sorry to be dramatic, but you're overlooking the whole crucifixion thing. I see it as a symbol of personal sacrifice for the greater good.

[tocqueville]

6. nothing new : he idea is the same than the Abraham story

in the first version an Angel stops Abraham, in the second he goes all the way...

the scapegoat myth is an old myth. People have sacrified to Gods to save themselves, their crops, good hunting etc.. Normally animals, but even humans...

The Jesus story is only a variation on that theme. Besides nobody knows if it really happened. BUt like Oprah would say.. it's a good story...

[Inland]

117. Except that he sacrifices himself, for people who don't deserve it.

That's a profound change in the myth.

[greyl]

82. That was essentially assisted suicide, right?

Judas was on an assignment from Jesus as I understand the story.

Why is it mostly religious people who are against assisted suicide?

[Crunchy Frog]

7. I don't know about Christianity

but I do feel that the Golden Rule is about the best system of ethics you are likely to come up with. It's essentially ethics based on empathy, or doing the right thing because you can place yourself in another's shoes and feel some of their pain or pleasure. It makes what you do about the wellbeing of the other person, rather than about yourself and your own reward/punishment.

The most truly moral people are the ones who have empathy, and who genuinely care about others, not the ones who are acting out selfish desires to be rewarded or avoid punishment. There are both kinds of people in Christianity, as there are amongst followers of other religions, or of no religion.

[varkam]

9. I hate to say it...

But I take issue with the Golden Rule as well. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I agree in most aspects it's a very good rule. But take sado/masochism for example - if one would have others inflict pain onto them, then the golden rule would hold that it is moral for them to do the same to others.

[rucky]

12. you are so stoned!

ever look at a dollar bill?


ever look at a dollar bill.....stoned?

[Zhade]

48. HAHAHAHAHA!

Reminds me of the new Jack In The Box commercial...

"How many should I get?"

"30."

"That's what I was thinking!"

:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Not really.

Most human beings have the capacity to understand that their own individual preferences do not apply to universally. Doing unto others would be interpreted by most reasonable people as meaning respecting other people's preferences, not imposing your own on them.

To come up with a simpler example: I hate onions and I love chocolate. If I'm following the Golden Rule, it does not follow that, when feeding another person I should force chocolate on them and deny them onions, especially if they love onions and hate chocolate. Rather, it means that I should respect their own preferences, and do what will make them happy. To extend this logic to your example, you would only practice sado/masochism on someone who liked it and wanted it, and not on someone who didn't.

[varkam]

20. But all the golden rule says...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not do unto others as you would have them do unto you...as long as you both are in agreement.

Yes I agree that *most reasonable people* interpret the rule in such a fashion....but how many reasonable people are there around?

Plus, I think with respect to liking onions - it's not really much of a moral issue, more of a taste preference. But things like violence I think carry a stronger moral connotation, in other words I'm not sure how well one translates into the other. But I could just be tired (Okay, I give, I am tired).

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. To give the New Testament its due, Jesus' 2nd commandment is

"thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". And that's the basis of Christian ethics - so your 'exception' of masochists is really nitpicking.

[immoderate]

31. Do unto onions?

Once again, and as in most cases, the argument is about what words mean. The issue about what is right and wrong is fairly well known. Theists and atheists alike have a good idea of that and are mostly in agreement.

The exceptions are rites that grow out of local taboos and customs that claim some offense from shaving a beard, eating shellfish, having contact with a menstruating woman, jerking off with the wrong hand, etc.

Waste of time.

--IMM

[Zhade]

49. But how do you feel about chocolate-covered onions?

:puke:

Sorry.

[Joyce]

10. The Golden Rule relates to

Kant's "Categorical Imperative." The idea is that if I do something (such as stealing money from a neighbor) and if everybody else did the same thing, then the effect would be very harmful. Therefore, everyone ought to make ethical and moral decisions according to the notion that "if everybody did it, what would be the result?" It's a very pragmatic way of arranging social behavior. So is The Golden Rule. :loveya: :hug: :loveya:

[Crunchy Frog]

13. There are various ways in which the Golden Rule

can be interpreted. I doubt that any of it's original formulators were thinking about Kant's "Categorical Imperative" at the time. That's one way in which it can make sense to the modern mind, but certainly not the only way.

[varkam]

15. According to the CI....

In Kant's view, it is always impermissible to lie. However I think that there are certain situations in which everyone would agree lying is the moral thing to do. For example, in Nazi germany there were several people who tried to hide the Jews from Nazi patrols. If a Nazi came to your door while you were hiding Jews, would you lie?

I know I'll probably get a reply saying "If everyone lied about hiding Jews, that wouldn't be bad!" True, but the CI was never intended as a situation by situation rule. It was meant to provide sweeping generalizations about morality (as I understand it), which is why it fails in this case.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. That's why I could never get into Kant

though to be fair, I only knew what I learned in a college Intro to Philosophy class more than twenty years ago. I couldn't find anything there that I felt could lead to a viable system of ethics that would work in the real world.

[Goblinmonger]

55. The Golden Rule is hardly a Christian invention

Not saying you are arguing that, but just thought it needed to be said.

[NMMNG]

79. The Golden Rule

While most people associate this with Christianity, it is not exclusive to that religion. There are similar tenets in nearly every religion/philosophy across the world, and have been throughout history.

- Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id... Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. - Leviticus 19:18, NIB
- Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets... All the Bible!, Matthew 7:1... Do to others as you would have them do to you, Luke 6:31 NIB
- Islam, No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. - Hadith recorded by al-Bukhari, Sunnah
- Hinduism, This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517
- Buddhism, Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,18
- Taoism, Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
- Jainism, Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so. - Acarangasutra 5.101-2
- Confucianism, Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2
- Zoroastrianism, Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others. - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29.
- Baha'i Faith, He should not wish for others what he does not wish for himself. - Baha'u'llah, Bahá'í Faith.
- Humanism, don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you. - British Humanist society
- Wicca: Bide the Wiccan Rede ye must, In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust; Live ye must and let to live, Fairly take and fairly give, the opening statement
- Socrates, Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others
- Epictetus, What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others
- Ancient Egypt, Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do.- The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

The Golden Rule, the positive Egyptian, Leviticus, Confucianist art of virtue, Christian, Muslim, and Wolf Bahá'í versions call for active interactions, which allows a masochist to harm others without their consent. This differs from the negative/passive version of the rule, sometimes called the Silver Rule, which says that one should abstain from certain actions.

http://biblia.com/theology/religions.htm

[tocqueville]

8. more interesting is the Uzi aspect

how come a country which such possibilities and ressources manage to produce a culture which is SO STRESSED that even women need to have religious motives not to kill each other ? What you describe is the Columbine syndrome...

How come most Europeans don't feel that way ? Social Security and Welfare ? 35 hours workweek ?

[FM Arouet666]

11. Damn atheists.....

Welcome to the board.

I would have to agree. Why do people believe? A fear of death is a common human concern. What occurs when we die? An afterlife is an attractive notion, but living forever seems to come with a price. Religion provides the ground rules for saving your eternal soul. But how do you motivate the religious adherent? The prime motivators; fear and selfishness. Fear the punishment of hell and obey, obey and you inherit ever lasting life, 87 virgins, a cloud and a mini bar. Christianity is not alone in this, most religions offer similar motivation. The whole construct seems very manipulative.

Expect to be attacked for your views, atheist views tend to draw flames. But, then again, since we are all going to hell anyway, we best get used to flames. :evilgrin:

[papau]

21. :-)the main atheist "problem" is seeing correlation and claiming causation

very manipulative? - unlike atheist attempts to frame a discussion?

Are morals absolute - so that atheists can have morals without a belief in God?

Are morals relative - with the atheist seeing the same prioities in all situations as those that believe in God and are therefore able to have the same morals as a believer?

Is an immoral atheist more immoral that an immoral believer in God.

Are my morals better than yours?

Can a moral act become immoral if it is based on the "wrong" motivation? Can anyone really know anothers motivation? Do we really know all aspects of our own motivation?

Now those are interesting topics! 25 pages by Monday, please!

:-)

:toast:

[varkam]

25. A response

"very manipulative? - unlike atheist attempts to frame a discussion?"

Well I don't think atheists generally try to prey on people's inherent fear of death, nothingness and eternal damnation - unlike say, Christians.


"Are morals absolute - so that atheists can have morals without a belief in God?"

If you think that morals are generated from god, then I think you might run into two problems. If you maintain that what is good is good because god decreed it so, then it's no longer a very significant statement to say that god is good. He could have just as easily decreed it so that murder and stealing are moral things - it trivializes morality and the very notion of god. If you maintain that god decreed morals *because* they are moral (i.e. said murder is bad *because* it is bad), then that implies that there is a moral system independent of god.

"Are morals relative - with the atheist seeing the same prioities in all situations as those that believe in God and are therefore able to have the same morals as a believer?"

I don't think so.

"Is an immoral atheist more immoral that an immoral believer in God."

Belief in God, IMO, is not a moral issue.

"Are my morals better than yours?"

If you follow a J-C system of normative ethical theory, then I suspect there are a great number of people who subscribe to better ethical systems. I don't know if mine are any better, though (nor do I know if I'm a more moral person - I have no way of knowing).

"Can a moral act become immoral if it is based on the "wrong" motivation? Can anyone really know anothers motivation? Do we really know all aspects of our own motivation?"

I don't think so. If you help someone because you think they're going to buy you dinner, then that's not necessarily immoral (as you're still helping them, that's worth something). But a moral act can never be truly moral with the "wrong" motivation. And for the last two questions - what I'm proposing is not really meant to be taken as a yard-stick by which you should measures one another's actions, it's more of a philosophical exercise in ethical theory.

[papau]

27. A response to a response - and thanks for the response! :-)

I do think that one can have morals and ethics without a belief in God, but that is just my humble opinion.

As to atheist mocking of believers as they try to tie the fact of death to what believers believe, perhaps this is not "manipulative" and is not an attempt to frame the discussion - but I think it is both.

Your presented options for the relationship of God and morals are a bit limited - I assume because this is only a post on a discussion board. I do not see how you get to a trivialized God by saying God is good, But you are of course allowed your own spin - whatever floats your boat.

As to a moral system independent of God, I believe I said I believe that possible - but could be wrong. "god decreed morals *because* they are moral (i.e. said murder is bad *because* it is bad), then that implies that there is a moral system independent of god." - OK :-)

If you are aware of the word infinity in math, you may be aware of how we use the first letter of the hebrew alphabet to describe the relative sizes of infinity - which I take as the same type of problem as saying there is a better ethical system than the "J-C system of normative ethical theory" - meaning you had better have a rule that says how you define how you determine "better" just as the math folks have a rule as to how they decide one infinity is bigger than another. Absent such a rule, your statement "I have no way of knowing" seems spot on to me.

And we agree as "Can a moral act become immoral if it is based on the "wrong" motivation? Can anyone really know another's motivation? Do we really know all aspects of our own motivation?" -where you say "I don't think so. If you help someone because you think they're going to buy you dinner, then that's not necessarily immoral (as you're still helping them, that's worth something). But a moral act can never be truly moral with the "wrong" motivation." - so why do we discuss why believers in God have come by the morals/ethics - the original thread implies fear of death makes one fear God, so ones moral acts are not moral -

As in HUH - run that by me again as I roll my eyes

But as we agree on motivation not affecting and that a moral act can never be truly moral with the "wrong" motivation, we are on the same page and agree you have not found a yard-stick by which you should measures one another's actions.

A philosophical exercise in ethical theory is not easy at my age - so I will leave it to you!

:-)

:toast:

[varkam]

34. A response to the response to the...ok

I did not intend to "mock" anyone by posting in the thread. Yes, the views are inflammatory, but I'm not throwing it out there just to upset people. It's something I've been thinking about.

As to a trivialized God, I'll try to spell it out a bit more clearly. It's a question of where one believes morality originates. If one believes it originates from God, then it is not a significant statement to say that God is a good God - as he/she/it could have just as easily stated the opposite to be true. In other words, it seems the only defense one can offer from this perspective is the "because I said so" argument.

And I only say that there are better ethical theories simply because of all the harm J-C ethics (although it is perhaps unfair for me to single out J-C, as there certainly are other harmful prohibitions in other religions as well). A recent study published in the Journal of Religion and Society (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html - News Item, http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html - Full Article) comparing the religious fervor in countries (with USA being near the top, btw) with rates of things like teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases was published. The findings? There is a positive correlation between the fervor and the rates of said variables. In other words, the more religious a country is - the higher rates of teenage pregnancies, abortions and STDs there are. Though drawing causation from correlational data is impossible, it is interesting to note the agreement between those findings and prohibitions in J-C ethics (e.g. Don't have sex before you marry, don't use birth control, abstinence only education, etc).

Also, interestingly enough, I recently saw a report on CNN regarding teen abstinence vows (it's MSM, so take it with a pound of salt). The numbers CNN reported where that of teenagers who took abstinence vows, 88% of them would break it within one year. The downside? They were much more likely to contract STDs and have unwanted pregnancies - presumably because of the lack of education on the reproductive system, birth control, or communicable diseases.

But saying that there are better ethical theories is largely an assumption - as I refuse to accept that all the pain J-C causes is the *best* system of normative ethical theories around. There, in my mind, has to be a better set of rules. I am of course not promoting any one system over J-C's, as I don't have any way of knowing what is better and what is not.

In addition, I did not mean imply that it is the fear of death that makes one fear God - it is rather the fear of eternal damnation. It's a scary though, I'll admit. Fear is a powerful motivator, unfortunately, as Bertrand Russell once put it, it is also the parent of cruelty.

Motivation aside, the idea of eternal punishment without the chance for redemption seems largely immoral to me. Compared to eternity, what we do in the 90 or so years we have on this earth is going to seem like having a sip of coffee on a cold morning or sitting for a few seconds at a traffic light. It seems completely disproportionate to me that one should be punished for eternity for acts that took place over the space of time that it takes to blink.

[papau]

88. All valid points - it is just the emphasis/importance that we disagree on

Why is "because I said so" mean the ethics/morals are "bad" -

The thread below begins with my paraphrased abridge version of a newspaper forum discussion that has a few points on this topic and which you may find interesting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x49007

[trotsky]

52. Whoa.

I'm just going to sit back and savor the irony of this post.

(Atheists) "seeing correlation and claiming causation" - Intelligent design, anyone?

(atheist) "attempts to frame a discussion"

LOL

[papau]

89. Enjoy - it is fun to be rational!

:-)

[trotsky]

91. If that's what you think being rational is,

then I'm sure it IS fun. But the last I checked, making up your own reality wasn't rational.

[papau]

92. making up your own reality wasn't rational?? - like one where there is

no God -

??


If having a God around scares you, I agree we should let you make up your own reality and banish God from that reality. You deserve your own reality.

Whatever floats your boat.

[trotsky]

98. Do your arguments ever advance beyond the equivalent of

"I know you are, but what am I?" :eyes:

[papau]

103. When the level of intellectual argument by the atheist side rises

to a level beyond "I know you are, but what am I?" - perhaps

But DU poster "greyl" just linked me to a discussion that began with the premise that what Jesus said he did not say, and that therefore Jesus presents us with no moral or ethical teaching.

Yes - A strawman as in I say Jesus said what is recorded in the Bible and sets forth morals and ethics, and "grey1" says via link that most of the Jesus quotes are not really said by Jesus and then attacks my position that Jesus taught morals/ethics by saying what is left after I remove what should not be there does not speak to morals and ethics. Very classic.

But If I said that it was a strawman you would say I was saying "I know you are, but what am I?" - not that any form of logic led you to that conclusion that what I was saying was "I know you are, but what am I?" - but the atheist need not use logic as long as he has faith in his no God fairy tale.

[trotsky]

105. It's a strange, strange world you live in, papau.

Where saying that Hansel & Gretel was a fairy tale, is a fairy tale itself. :wtf:

You have heard about the Jesus Seminar, right? Those are biblical scholars who are far, far more knowledgable of the bible than you or I are, and they don't think Jesus actually said a lot of what is attributed to him in the bible. Are you calling them liars, too?

[papau]

109. The Jesus Seminar is a Delphi approach to something that does not

fit the Delphi approach -

And no they are not smarter than you - or I - am.

Yes they are wrong.

But they do not know they are wrong so they "lie" as in being mistaken but are not liars.

On DU atheist folks get sloppy and indicate they know they are lying - making them liars.

Funny how the DU atheist has no problem calling the Christian - walking with the Christ in 30AD or walking with Christ in 2005 - a liar, but finds it hard to accept that atheists on this board are liars - mistaken does not work for the early Christians since one needs motivation to hold together the conspiracy of mistaken statements - meaning they are liars.

But on this board it is the Christian poster's lack of whatever that damns his case - god forbid we ever admit that we have different value judgements - and that it is not for one to call the other out over their different value judgement.

OK - back to how religion is the source of 90% of the worlds problems -as you post atheist to atheist.

The religion form needs to be renamed the Atheist self love forum.

[catbert836]

123. "The Athiest Self Love Forum"

Yes, and it's all the poor, opressed Christians can bear to see those mean athiests slapping each other on the back... :eyes:.

[CJCRANE]

14. I think the heaven and stuff

was useful in the olden days but nowadays we have human rights and can decide for ourselves what's right through ethical debate and consensus.

The other aspect of religion I don't like is the believer/unbeliever dichotomy.

I'm an atheist/agnostic but I can relate to Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc all equally as human beings, there is no "in" or "out" group in my mind.

Religion is a good basis for moral laws but shouldn't be the final arbiter IMHO.

[China_cat]

19. I can't see any religion

founded on death and expounding the ideals of reward/punishment AFTER death as anything but morally bankrupt. A death cult.

[xchrom]

22. i would say that the ethics presented in the bible are situtational.

[Burning Water]

23. What philosophy is ethical,

then?? How well do its practitioners follow its guidelines? More importantly, how many are there that claim to follow its guidelines? Most importantly, how does it determine what is a moral, or ethical action?

No need for an essay, one or two sentence answers per question will be enough to get me to investigate and study. If they make sense and are better than what Christianity, or some other religions, already have to offer.

[Boojatta]

24. Questions about "bribery" and about fear of "negative consequences"

if you help someone because you believe they will do something good for you in return, that's not being moral - that's bribery.

If you pay in advance for some service from a person who is a sole proprietor because you believe the person will actually provide the service, then that's bribery?

For example, if someone catches Ralph Nader on film buying a veggie wiener from a veggie wiener stand, then might there be a big news story about Nader's veggie wiener bribery scandal?

Likewise, if you do something good because you are afraid of negative consequences, that's not being moral either - that's being threatened.

Suppose you are one day not afraid of any legal penalty for driving through a red light. If you are concerned about some possible negative consequences -- such as a collision or the development of a bad habit -- then is stopping at a red light "not being moral"?

[varkam]

26. Answers.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by my example. If you pay someone in advance because you believe they will provide a service that is *not* bribery. If you *help* someone (i.e. behave in a selfless fashion) because you're hoping that you'll get something out of it in return, that is bribery. Thinking "Hey, I'll get good thing X if I do good thing Y" is never a very moral motivation.

Suppose you are one day not afraid of any legal penalty for driving through a red light. If you are concerned about some possible negative consequences -- such as a collision or the development of a bad habit -- then is stopping at a red light "not being moral"?

I think so. Granted, they're better motivations than "I don't wanna get pulled over", but it's still not doing the right thing *for it's own sake*. You're still doing the right thing to avoid negative consequences.

[papau]

28. ultimately all do the right thing to avoid negative consequences - your.

self image is important to you. If an action makes you view yourself in a poor light, you do not do it.

I do not think you have found a distinction between atheism's "pure morality" and a believers "motivated morality"

[varkam]

30. I think

That you're misunderstanding me. I've never said atheism has "pure morality", nor have I ever claimed that I always do good things for their own sake (I make mistakes, just like everyone does). Belief in god, or lack thereof is not a moral compass. There are plenty of bad religious folks, just like there are bad atheists.

And if you do a good thing because it will make you feel better about yourself...well...I hate to sound like a broken record, but again it's just bribery.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Don't bother trying to explain,

papau's being purposely obtuse.

He has "issues" with atheists.

Especially the uppity ones who post here.

Welcome!

[papau]

93. Hi scottie - uppity atheists who are certain they are correct are always

fun.

Motivation becomes bribe when God is involved, but not when there is uppity atheist peer pressure?

interesting.

At least the usual atheist Persecution Pity Party is not being held today!

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

122. Ah, papau. Incoherent as usual.

Have you tried reading your sentences out loud before posting them?

It looks like you believe I've actually posted my thoughts about the op, but that can't be right, since I have done no such thing.

Or perhaps you're just trying to find another reason to malign atheists.

Either way, your post makes no sense.

[renter]

29. varkam, please read...

the first four books of the New Testament. Each book alone contains the awnser to your question. Taken together, they reinforce the awnser. Thank you varkam and please, do read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I hope you have a very good day.

[beam me up scottie]

36. What do you tell all the atheists who have read and rejected your books?

To read them again?

[varkam]

37. Yes.

Until they believe them :)

[beam me up scottie]

38. It didn't work for you either,

did it? :evilfrown:

[salvorhardin]

40. That might be a while

I don't plan on having the cerebral aneurysm until I'm in my 80s.

[renter]

83. Hi Scottie,

1. I would say it was their choice.
2. I would ask why, and buy the first round. However, two drinks is my limit due
to that blood-alcohol thing.

[beam me up scottie]

124. By "their choice" you mean that we choose to do what?

To not believe?

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.

I can no sooner make myself believe in your god than I can make myself believe in pink unicorns or invisible dragons.

And that's not meant to be a slight on your faith, or that of anyone else, renter.

It's just the way I and many other atheists view all supernatural beliefs.

It's not a rejection of your god, it's a rejection of all things that require belief without evidence.

We simply CAN'T believe in the supernatural.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with choice.


We also understand that you cannot make yourself STOP believing in your god simply because we think it's illogical.

If your faith comforts you, gives you moral direction and encourages you to help others, I say good for you.

If your faith requires you to try to convert me, restrict or take away my constitutional rights, and/or hijack my government in an attempt to turn my home into a theocracy, I say we have a problem, Houston.

I'm hoping I can say the former, and that we can drink a toast to our mutual respect.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Actually, and I can't remember the exact place, now

Jesus says that you should do good without thought of being paid back. He says that doing good with the expectation of a reward is bad, only that it's nothing special. ("Even the Gentiles--Greeks and Romans in that case--do the same," he says.) Doing good without expectation of a reward is a higher form of morality.

By all means, doing good for impure motives is better than doing evil or allowing evil to flourish.

[Nikia]

35. The whole Sermon on the Mount

is about going beyond conventional morality.

[Inland]

41. "Can't claim the moral high ground." I would be more impressed

if I didn't get the feeling this was an attempt to discount a christian's good acts as merely a down payment.

The OP isn't about morality, it's about scoring points by minimizing a christian's acts as movitivated by fear. Hospitals, fear. Charity, fear. Doing unto others, fear.

Isn't it amusing how an atheist can't tell you what is moral, and cannot tell one what is ethical, except to carefully define it as nothing that a christian could be doing? How cute. How convenient.

We know the atheist doesn't believe, doesn't buy it, is against it. ONe of these discussions, someday, is going to be an atheist telling us what he is for, instead of telling us the fault of everyone else. You want a better ethical system? Build it yourself, and take the mote out of your own eye.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Such issues!

If you really wanted to impress us, you'd address the op instead of grandstanding.

[Zebedeo]

67. Awesome post

:yourock:

Hit the nail on the head.

[Feenicks]

43. The reason is quite simple-- God commands it.

My basic idea is this - Christianity cannot provide an adequate reason for why someone should be moral.

So we know that God desires us to act morally. And out of gratitude to our Creator, we obey. Simple.

[varkam]

63. Simple.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that morality is based upon what God commands. I think that you're going to run into a problem.

The news ever since I've been around has had stories of people committing acts of murder, kidnapping, etc. because "God came to me and told me...". Now, if God commands you to say - rape little boys, would you obey? I know that's a bit of a sensational example, but I'm only using it to help illustrate my point. You'll find yourself with two choices - stick to your theological guns and go a'rapin', or come to the conclusion that there is a morality independent of any creator that may exist.

In addition to that, as I think I mentioned earlier, if you accept the Divine Command theory, then it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. In other words, it trivializes the very notion of morality in God. If God commands murder is bad...well because it's bad, then God commands...what he commands? It's circular logic and implies that God could have just as easily said that murder is good.

[More Than A Feeling]

44. self-delete

[nemo137]

45. Aren't you basically claiming that all Christians work off Descartes wager

Please forgive me if you aren't - the charge of "putting words into my mouth" flies pretty freely down here - but when you argue that Christians work from the carrot and stick approach, rather than out of a desire to live the Golden Rule or out of the belief that God is Love, and therefore we should work from that understanding, it sounds a bit like that.

[Inland]

51. SEEEMS like its defining christian acts such.

They are all in it for the heaven or to escape hell, which therefore disqualifies what they do as ethical. Which requires the premises that true ethics requires that an act cannot be rewarded and still be ethical, and that christians believe that all acts are rewarded. Both are problematic as far as I know. It seems pretty clear that there isn't much discussion of ethics beyond excluding christians by a couple tricks of definition, which, when the topic is ethical systems, strikes me as ironic.

[varkam]

56. Clarification.

I think an act *can* be rewarded and still be ethical. Theoretically, even a good, God fearing bible beating Christian could be purely ethical (so long as he/she performs the right action for it's own sake and nothing else) - the reward would come secondary. As long as the reward is not the motivation, although I think it would be incredibly hard to determine one's underlying motivations.

So therefore, I'm not really excluding anyone (at least hypothetically). But J-C normative systems don't state "Hey, you should do good things for their own sake". Why? Because, admittedly, that's a bad motivation for people. A better motivation? "If you don't do good things you're going to suffer forever!" That's scary. If I believed it, I'm sure I would be motivated to do good things.

[Inland]

58. So christianity is fine. The thesis is that *christians* are unethical.

Instead of a critique of the ethical system, the new premise is that people who do things with an eye to reward or punishment are in fact acting unethically. Combine that with the premise that christians act with an eye to a reward always, the conclusions is that christians are unethical.

I'm wondering if you've ever met an ethical person, by that standard. Seems to me that it's another set of rules pretty much defined to put the christians in an inescapable box, that is, that none of their acts count becaue of a presumption of a motivation...not a BAD motivation, but ANY motivation.

The fact that puts all christians *by definition* on the same ethical level as an atheist who does nothing because he doesn't adhere to any ethical system at all isn't entirely lost on me. Let's just say I'm suspicious of any ethical system where anyone who does good is put on the same level as someone who doesn't do good and has no belief system that defines much less compels good, finding it to be not so much a system of ethics but a system of discounting and levelling. If the people living right with the goal of living right aren't any more "ethical" than the person who doesn't live right and has no interest in trying, then who desires "ethics" anyway?

If the smallest compliment you can pay somebody is that they are ethical, then you've changed the definition and I, for one, would rather not have it. Fuck ethics then, as a worthless construct with no meaning whatsover and another pile of nothing.

[varkam]

61. I think you're got me completely backwards.

Perhaps I'm just not being clear or you're misunderstanding me. If one were to buy the J-C normative system hook, line and sinker then it would not be pure morality. I'm working on the assumption that there are Christians out there who don't believe everything they read in books or are told as children. Perhaps I am mistaken.

[Inland]

64. Then state it plainly.

1) is any particular act unethical if it is done in anticipation of some sort of reward?

2) have you ever met a person who acts ethically, by that standard?

I'm pretty conscious of the fact that the christian who enters a life of charity in the hope of pleasing Jesus is unethical while the atheist who doesn't do anything at all, and therefore expects no reward for his works NOR deserves any for that matter, is at the same "level".

If that's ethics, fuck it. Who needs some philosophy that takes the standard of ethics and makes all ethics depend, not on behavior, but on motivation. It's pretty worthless as an ETHICAL set of values, and nobody would have wasted two minutes thinking it up, but for the fact that it just so happens to devalue everything a believer does and makes it impossible for them to be ever judged more ethical than an atheist no matter what he does.

The exercise to pull a person actually living a good life down to the same level as someone who does not, merely because the former is a christian and expects it to please god, is hardly one of ethics.

[varkam]

65. I can see I've upset you.

It wasn't my intent to upset you or anyone else for that matter. I didn't know I was going to engender such hostility, and I'll think more carefully about my words in the future. On to my response:

1) If an "good" action is motivated primarily by the anticipation by the actor of reward, then no, I would not say that such an action is purely ethical. Sure, it does good, but it's disingenuous at the same time. Returning a lost pet to it's rightful owner because of the anticipation of monetary reward, while good, is not really ethical.

2) I can't say that neither I nor anyone I met acts by such a standard all the time. I, others I know, and I'm sure you yourself have acted by such a standard at one time or another, but I, others I know, and I'm sure you yourself have made mistakes in life. I know I've done things I'm not proud of, and I'm not claiming any sort of moral high-ground. How about you? My criticism is less directed at followers of J-C normative systems and more at the system itself.

I've never claimed that atheists are more ethical than christians, nor have I claimed anything about the value of my own moral character.

But perhaps you could explain to me why you can claim that an atheist, without knowing anything else about this hypothetical person, is not living a "good life".

[Inland]

86. You've proposed a worthless construct of "ethical".

All to make sure that nobody can say that a christian, leading a good life, is more ethical than an atheist leading a so so or not so good life, by definition of "ethical."

It's a waste of a good word like "ethical", making it meaningless in an attempt to level. Of course, YOU aren't claiming any is more ethical. I'm not sure you COULD claim anyone is "more ethical" given your set of definitions, and I'm not sure if you ever intended to accomplish more than the result of levelling, to find a way to discount christian charitable works and attempts, however flawed, to lead good lives.

Why wouldn't you allow the person dedicating his life to good works to claim a moral high ground? Or at least allow me to evaluate where he stands? Why feel it necessary to construct an ethical systement that by definition negates the efforts of believers so that they can't possibly earn your kudos?

At best, its worthless. At the least, it's a transparent attempt to level.

[Goblinmonger]

94. What about the converse of that

You seem to be proposing a construct of "ethical" that makes it so that you can say a christian is ethical for doing X and Y while an atheist is not "ethical" nor "moral" for also doing X and Y.

I think you have been missing the point. Let's try this one:

1. Doing something because knowing that doing it will stop your dad from smacking you in the head is not a decision made on ethics or morals. Agree or disagree?

2. Doing something because knowing that doing it will lead to your spouse being more willing to engage in activities that you find enjoyable is not a decision made on ethics or morals. Agree or disagree?

3. Doing something because you know it is the "right thing to do" even though NOBODY will know about it and you will never get anything out of it is a decision made on ethics or morals. Agree or disagree?

If you answered anything but agree, agree, agree, you are lying.

How is doing something because it will lead to you getting to heaven any different? You are doing it because you don't want your "daddy" to smack you around for all eternity. That is not a decision based on morals or ethics. It is a decision made to stop the abuse in a relationship.

When I am going for lunch at Blimpies (Subway for some areas of the country) and I bring the homeless guy on the street in with me and buy him a sandwich, chips, and a soda, I am doing that because it is the right thing to do, not because of any perceived reward. That is a decision based on morals and ethics even though I am a heretic.

[RoyGBiv]

66. FWIW ...

I, for one, am following your argument here and am totally with you.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Pascal's wager?

I will enjoy the irony of a theist accusing an atheist of using the wager when that is usually a tool of the theist AGAINST the atheist.

[M155Y_A1CH]

53. Forgiveness equates with apathy

It doesn't help that a mass murderer or worse
can be lovingly accepted into the fold by simply declaring themselves saved.

All that "if JC forgives you, so do I" is no moral guidance.
There is no reason to change one's behavior if one can be "saved" anytime they wish.
I think it lends an excuse to ill planned actions and creates an air
of nonchalance by God regarding human suffering.
If God doesn't care to avenge one's victims, why should I care about them?

I'd rather see a religion with a god who puts ALL souls in the hell of their merit
with heaven as the home of god alone.
Those souls who have saved themselves and others
from commiting the greater evils, being given the most ease and comfort in hell.
You can only be "saved" by causing less harm.

To err is human so we all are guilty.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. I think you're trying to hard to make Christianity look bad.

Firstly, I don't think one can justify "Christianity is not ethical" as a summary of a post whose gist, as far as I can tell is "Christian teaching is that all good deeds are ultimately rewarded, and so for a Christian all seemingly virtuous actions are actually self-interested", and secondly, that argument is heavily flawed.

Christianity very explicitly teaches that salvation is by faith and not by works: to get into heaven one only needs to (insert spiritual step-by-step guide here; a Christian could summarise it better than I can); doing good works won't help, but one of the steps is "become the sort of person who does good works because they're good, without thought of reward".

You *could* arguably make the case you're trying to make to claim that e.g. Buddhists or Hindus are "simply not being ethical, period" (out of curiosity, why did you choose Christianity rather than one of those two as your example?) but I think it would be foolish even there: even if all good deeds are rewarded, it is still possible to do a good deed for the sake of doing good, without thought of the reward, in which case it would be just as "ethical" as if it were unrewarded by any sane "scoring system".

[varkam]

62. Yes it's possible...

to do good without the intent of reward, but that possibility rests squarely at the feet of the individual - not most theist ethical systems. In other words, Christians (or anyone for that matter) can behave with this "pure morality" (and, let me explicitly state, for the record, that I am not presuming to be a moral individual). But the point which I am trying to make is that the *system* has inherent flaws.

And you are correct in implying that it is a bit unfair of me to single out J-C. It's the religion which I have the most experience with (I used to be devoutly religious) and knowledge of - which, admittedly, is not as much as some.

But even if I accept your premise that Christianity teaches that doing good works won't help one to get into heaven, then there is still the threat of hell? How does one avoid that? Presumably there are a number of ways to avoid hell, not the least of which are avoiding committing mortal sins and confession. Regardless, there is still the omnipresent threat of eternal damnation for actions undertaken in these few years we have. It still seems like a pretty blatant threat to me.

[Zebedeo]

69. You are thinking of Catholicism

Presumably there are a number of ways to avoid hell, not the least of which are avoiding committing mortal sins and confession.

That's Catholicism.

[Zebedeo]

68. Excellent, excellent points

I was going to make the same points, but I was too lazy.

out of curiosity, why did you choose Christianity rather than one of those two as your example?

That's an easy one! Because bashing Christians is accepted, while bashing Buddhists or Hindus would be seen as poor form.

[varkam]

70. If you had read my response...

Just a couple up:

"And you are correct in implying that it is a bit unfair of me to single out J-C. It's the religion which I have the most experience with (I used to be devoutly religious) and knowledge of - which, admittedly, is not as much as some."

[beam me up scottie]

72. Give it up. The Persecution Pity Party is here.

They are ignoring your responses because they don't want to discuss the issue.

The PPP remind me of my bratty little brother who would scream and fall on the floor, pretending I slugged him when he wanted to get me in trouble.

After a while, I got sick of getting in trouble for something I didn't do, so I started slugging him.

[Zebedeo]

73. Slug away

if it makes you feel good.

But before you do, could you point me to the threads where snarky comments are made about Buddhist or Hindu beliefs?

Maybe a thread titled "Buddhism is not ethical" or "Hindus are immoral." Something like that. Can't find any? Perhaps that is because what I posted is true. People on DU have enough manners not to make fun of people's religious beliefs -- except, of course, if those beliefs are Christian, in which case it's bash away.

Many of the atheists on this forum have stated that they were once Christian believers. Perhaps, having left the faith, they have a psychic need to bash Christianity, to mask the anxiety and "buyer's remorse" that they experience from that decision. Who knows?

[beam me up scottie]

74. So snarky comments constitute "bashing" ?

I had no idea you'd moved the goal posts again.

I notice you didn't bother addressing the op about his alleged "snarky" comments.

I think he's been nothing but polite and respectful.

Are you trying to make him angry?

[Zebedeo]

75. Polite and respectful

Would you consider it "polite and respectful" if I started a thread titled "atheism is not ethical"? What about "Buddhism is not ethical"? Or "Judaism is not ethical"?

I have not responded to the OP, because there is no point in doing so. The poster has a very warped view of Christians and seems to be entirely ignorant of basic Christian doctrine. S/he does not seem to understand that salvation is through faith, not works. The purpose of the entire thread is to -- well, I don't need to summarize it. It's right there in the title of this thread.

[beam me up scottie]

76. I wouldn't be too lazy to read the op. But hey, that's just me.

You go with whatever works for you.

It's ever so much more fun to scream persecution instead of actually reading what the poster has to say and attempting to discuss the issue.



We're still out of wood, though.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Funny thing is, other christians disagree about the works/heaven thing.

But you'd have to read the thread in order to grok that.

Forget I said anything.

Carry on.

[varkam]

87. Wow, I never knew that...

according to your argument, all those aborted babies are going to wind up in hell. I mean, given the premise that "salvation is through faith and not works", it's just a logical extension that damnation is through lack of faith. Well I don't really see how neonates who are aborted (or even those that are spontaneously aborted) can have faith in a God they've never even heard of. Wow...eternal damnation before you even get out of the womb. Seems pretty harsh to me, but hey, who am I to criticize?

Also it would stand to reason that, hypothetically, if there is a Christian who spends his or her life using other people for his or her own benefit (but with undoubtedly devout belief in God) then they will certainly wind up in heaven whereas, say a Buddhist, spends his or her life doing charitable work will wind up in hell. Oops! Guess you were following the wrong religion!

[Zebedeo]

90. Matthew 19:14

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

[Goblinmonger]

96. "Blessed are the poor in spirit

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Sounds like those without faith are on the short cruise to heaven, too.

[Zebedeo]

106. I guess you are joking

"Poor in spirit" means people who are humble, not people who lack faith.

Poverty of spirit is the opposite of pride. To be poor in spirit means to be devoid of pride in one's self and open to the Word of God.

Of course, that is the Christian belief. If you want to make up a meaning of this passage that is different from what Christians believe, you are welcome to do so. However, it will not support the argument of the OP that Christians are unethical.

[Goblinmonger]

108. Joking? No

Trying to show that a lot of what people "know" the bible tells them is so damn open to interpretation? Yes. And point made. Cause you say it is humility, but the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

The word poor seems to represent an Aramaic `ányâ (Hebr. `anî), bent down, afflicted, miserable, poor; while meek is rather a synonym from the same root, `ánwan (Hebr. `ánaw), bending oneself down, humble, meek, gentle. Some scholars would attach to the former word also the sense of humility; others think of "beggars before God" humbly acknowledging their need of Divine help. But the opposition of "rich" (Luke 6:24) points especially to the common and obvious meaning, which, however, ought not to be confined to economical need and distress, but may comprehend the whole of the painful condition of the poor: their low estate, their social dependence, their defenceless exposure to injustice from the rich and the mighty. Besides the Lord's blessing, the promise of the heavenly kingdom is not bestowed on the actual external condition of such poverty. The blessed ones are the poor "in spirit", who by their free will are ready to bear for God's sake this painful and humble condition, even though at present they be actually rich and happy; while on the other hand, the really poor man may fall short of this poverty "in spirit".

Seems like even the Catholics can't agree on what it means.

It doesn't support the view that xians are unethical, but it certainly sheds a little light on the fact that religion being an ethical code is kind of a load since nobody knows what the hell it means. Not to mention the "unethical" things the bible tells us to do (oppress women, hate gays). I know, MOST of that is old testament. But if you toss out the OT, there goes the 10 commandments.

[papau]

112. It is not that hard to understand -spiritual poverty is the

prerequisite for eternal life. Nobody gets into heaven who thinks they have cause to be there, other than Christ. Your hands have to be empty before they can be filled by Him. There must be nothing there. This is not something that we do in and of ourselves. We do not empty ourselves; we do not make ourselves poor. We don’t even, in and of ourselves, recognize our poverty. That too is a work of God’s grace. It is evidence of God’s work in us that we see ourselves for who we are and therefore are willing to turn to Him because He has turned our hearts toward Him. We have nothing to bring to Him. We have nothing to lay claim to Him. We have nothing to cause God to act graciously in our behalf. It is all of His mercy; it is all of His grace.


You are called to do good deeds - but you do not expect a reward for doing those good deeds.

[Goblinmonger]

113. Funny

there are numerous Christian religions that disagree with you in the interpretation of that passage. Just what is a person who wants to be moral and ethical to do when the Bible doesn't even make the same sense across sects? And what about the gay hating, women oppressing?

You are called to do good deeds (i.e. god expects and demands that you do) but you don't expect a reward for doing them. Hmmmmmmm. So if you don't do them, god will have no problem with that even though he has called you do to them. He's a pretty easy going guy given all his hubris in the bible about "No false gods" etc.

[papau]

114. Not doing good and you are tossed - doing good guarantees nothing

Since there are many sects the DU theist must defend there differences -

or their differences prove there is no God

or the OT tone -hubris - says have only one God - and different sects mean you have different Gods

And what about gay hating, women oppressing since that is in at least a few sects.

Isn't mocking fun?

Doesn't prove or even discuss a damn thing - but sure is fun.

[Goblinmonger]

115. Seriously, dude, you need some sleep.

I mean, I rarely, if ever, agree with you about religion/theology, but that post makes little to no sense. I'll try do what I can.

Since there are many sects the DU theist must defend there differences

No, but stop acting like there is ONE source for a SINGLE interpretation of what is ethical. Even Christians can't agree, for goodness sake, what their source says. You gotta admit that sheds some light on the "being moral is following god's word" mantra you hear a lot on here.

their differences prove there is no God

I never said that at all. I have never tried to prove there is no God. That would be your burden to prove that there is one. My position is, and always has been: Absent any proof to the contray, there is no god (just like there is no tooth fairy, no santa clause, no unicorns, no dragons).

the OT tone -hubris - says have only one God - and different sects mean you have different Gods

Take things out of context much? I said that the tone of the old testament is hubris. That I will agree to. (You gotta admit, he sounds pretty jealous and insecure there with the "only one god" bit.) I never said different sects means you have different gods. I said that if god is telling you to do good works and you don't do them, the god of the OT (which is still the same god as the New Testament--or did they change that on me) doesn't sound like a god that would cotton to that. To put it another way, a god that spouts the hubris of the old testament does not seem like a god that would just let you slide for not doing good deeds when he deems it so.

And what about gay hating, women oppressing since that is in at least a few sects.

Yeah, what about it? You have provided no answer for it And a "few sects?" It is in the old testament and a directive from god. Sure, you can tell me that it is the OT and that is not the basis for Christianity, but then you have to toss out the 10 Commandments. Jesus never says to follow the 10 Commandments but to follow "his commandments" and he gives some new ones. Never repeats the old ones.

My entire point being that you get yourself into a sticky situation when you say that morality comes from god and the bible is the word of god.

Doesn't prove or even discuss a damn thing - but sure is fun.

I have raised legitimate points, and you do nothing to answer them. You may not want to deal with the internal inconsistencies I raise in what you put forth as your belief system, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Explain why they aren't. I'm fine with that. I'd love an explanation on the points above. Haven't seen one yet, though.

[papau]

119. There are books of explanations - just doesn't fit cut and paste posting

I agree about the need for sleep -

But quick and dirty and incomplete -

I was searching for your question - and what I saw - as your question - is what I posted

We agree that there is more than one sect - more than one source for a discussion. But pick a sect and you aften have ONE source for a SINGLE interpretation of what is ethical. But I do not know what is the point of this factoid.


As to "their differences prove there is no God" we totally disagree as to what is required of the atheist to be able to say that it was not by faith - it was only by logic - that he concluded theism was not for him.

On Hubris in the OT we agree - and we agree that the God of the OT who is the God of the NT would not be pleased by one not doing good works - my only point is that one does not get to heaven by adding up good deed points.

A discussion of some folks doing wrong does have much point - IMHO - to anything we are discussing - unless the point is to mock or put down religion.

Jesus never said toss out the 10 Commandments - he did give a summary of the 613 laws which in turn gives us a point of view as to how to interpret those 613 laws.

And now we come to the kicker - I said there is a morality and ethics in religion - I did not say that one could not be moral or ethical if you did not believe in God.

internal inconsistencies are there only if your value judgements and interpretations tell you they are there - others will not see those internal inconsistencies - and indeed each side will not see why the other side does not see the situation there way.

So I can't explain why internal inconsistencies aren't there - I can only speak to what I see.

night

[Donald Ian Rankin]

118. You've missed the point, I think.

I may be putting words into the mouths of Christians here, but my understanding is that Christian teaching is not that God rewards good deeds and/or punishes bad ones, but that for salvation it is necessary to *be the sort of person* who does good deeds and not bad ones without thought of reward.

And the stuff about gay hating and women oppressing looks very much like it's is just a cheap dig. It's got nothing to do with the discussion on this thread, which is about motivations to act in an ethical manner, not about the specifics of what that manner is. If you want to discuss Christian views on gays and/or women, can I reccommend starting a thread for that purpose rather than hijacking this one.

[Goblinmonger]

126. I think you are putting words into the mouths of Christians

because you completely discount the views of Roman Catholics. Good deeds are necessary to achieve heaven for that sect. Which again leads to my point that everyone has their own interpretation and they vary in major ways.

This thread was "hijacked" by those I responded to about the fact that morals and ethics come from god. My point was that the source of those ethics seems flawed if that same source tells me to kill gays and oppress women.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

128. Catholics believe good works are necessary for salvation?

That's not what I've always believed? Are you sure? Can you point me to any sources?

I'm not entirely sure how many Catholics believe what about purgatory, but I thought that the official position was that works are cetainly not sufficient, and not as such necessary (but see the caveat in my last post) for ultimate salvation.

[Goblinmonger]

132. Here is a bit from the Catholic Encyclopedia

I can find better, but I am short on time.

Further, it is a greater thing to do a good deed than to omit an evil deed. But the omission of an evil deed always avoids a punishment, even in one who lacks charity. Much more, therefore, do good deeds void punishment.

The belief that good deeds get you into heaven is the basis for the split between Catholics and some major Protestant religions.

[beam me up scottie]

129. But the op is not arguing that christians are unethical.

It is, however, unethical to willfully misrepresent the motives of others.

[varkam]

101. What did Jesus sound like?

I mean, because I'm assuming you were there - given the "Jesus said". Oh right, it's from the bible. If you want to trust the umpteenth translation, then more power to you. It's funny how just one little word can make a big difference (i.e. anger vs. sympathy when Jesus was asked to heal people).

Regardless, I'm not trying to debate scripture with you. Undoubtedly your knowledge is superior to mine in that respect. I was simply trying to get at the destination of the road you were traveling down by arguing that salvation is through faith and not works. Now if you want to throw scripture at me, that's fine - but it still doesn't answer my question or resolve any of the issues I'm having.

[Zebedeo]

104. Authoritative

He sounded authoritative.

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Matthew 28:18

The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. Mark 1:22

The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." Mark 1:27

the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins Mark 2:10

Those aborted babies you referred to have eternal souls, too.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Jeremiah 1:5

I'm not trying to debate scripture with you.

Well, if you want to know about Christianity and understand Christian beliefs, you might just have to read some Scripture, because that is what Christians believe. On the other hand, if your purpose is just to bash Christians, I guess you can do that without caring what Christians actually believe.

[varkam]

107. My purpose is not...

and never was to bash Christians, and I have read scripture (I used to believe in God and attend church weekly). What I thought was happening was we were disagreeing with one another and arguing to attempt to come a resolution. What I'm saying is that scripture isn't going to sway me one way or the other in a logical discussion. Perhaps that's a flaw within my character, perhaps not; but I have a hard time accepting the conclusion if the primary premise is "Because Jesus said so".

[FM Arouet666]

137. Don't claim to be a victim and cast the opposition as shameless 'bashers'

Can you, as a christian, accept that there exists in this world other human beings which do not, and will not, believe as you believe?

No need to quote scripture, I have read the bible, old and new testaments and numerous texts both pro and con for religious belief. How can I 'know' christianity any more? Reading is fine, but actions based on those reading is what characterizes the religion. The apologetic will decry the distortion of the 'true' faith, yet remain silent on controversial issues, quietly voting for Chimp, a fellow evangelical.

I can respect your belief, believe as you like. Pray all day if you like. America should foster an environment for all to flourish, the christian, the atheist, the jew, catholic, hindu, etc etc. What you perceive as bashing is legitimate concern that the conservative christian movement does not seek tolerance.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." G.H.W. Chimp

"Our goal is a Christian nation. ... We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ... Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules." Randall Terry

"If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious." Pat Robertson

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." Jerry Fallwell

But then again these are not "true christians." The "true christian" believes in the good book, a tolerant soul, which seeks peaceful coexistence. Funny, I recall a Star Trek episode which mentioned 'peaceful coexistence.' Strange little parasites from afar bent on dominating the federation. Quick, check your neck, do you have a tiny breathing gill which protrudes? Do you eat grub worms?

Just a thought

[Donald Ian Rankin]

111. You must have known, surely,

That most Christians (by no means all, in general conservative/traditionalist ones and devout ones are more likely to believe it than liberal or lax ones) believe that being a Christian is necessary in most situations for salvation?

What happens to stillborn/aborted/unbaptised babies has been the subject of a great deal of debate over the last couple of millenia. Dante, IIRC, has them on the border of Hell in somewhere called the "Limbus infantium", and most Catholics in past centuries agreed with him, but the believe is less widely held nowadays, although it's still not common. I'm ashamed to say I don't know much about Protestant or Orthodox beliefs about the fate of babies who die unbaptised, but I think there's considerable division there too.

However, I think it's believed by most (although by no means all) Christians that those who never had an opportunity for faith (babies and the "Invincibly ignorant), if they can get into heaven, are a special case - those who had a chance to become Christians and didn't take it can't.

As to the first half of your second point, the standard Christian rebuttal (whether you accept it as logically valid or not is up to you) is that it's impossible to love God/have faith/be saved/whatever formalism they're using without trying one's best to be a good person. Most, but not opverwhelmingly most, Christians do believe that e.g. Buddhists, no matter how virtuous, cannot enter heaven, as far as I can tell.

C.S. Lewis's justification for this, in "Mere Christianity" is that all humans are sinful, and as such no-one deserves salvation. It's offered as a gift; to receive it one has to choose to accept it. Trying to earn it or win it is useless - the most you can do is fail to deserve it by an infinitely smaller margin - so if you refuse to accept it it's your own fault.

I don't think that if salvation did exist and did work like that, it would be legitimate to criticise God for not having made the fact more obvious, so that the argument isn't entirely valid, but I think it does answer the specific criticism's you've raised.

[varkam]

116. First off...

I'd just like to say that I appreciate your thoughtful response. I'll do my best to respond to your points in turn:

You must have known, surely...That most Christians (by no means all, in general conservative/traditionalist ones and devout ones are more likely to believe it than liberal or lax ones) believe that being a Christian is necessary in most situations for salvation?

I was well aware of this point, yes. I have been told many a time that I will burn for what I believe. It's just something that strikes me as particularly cruel, and was one of the major motivations for my renouncement of God and the church. Part of my underlying argument for this was outlined earlier. In addition, as I've said, the notion of eternal punishment for acts that fill such a relatively insignificant amount of time strikes me as immoral - I don't believe in such a being that would willfully subject his "children" to such cruelty. That's not to say I have *knowledge* of god's existence. For all I know there may very well be a God, and if so, I suppose I will burn.

What happens to stillborn/aborted/unbaptised babies has been the subject of a great deal of debate over the last couple of millenia. Dante, IIRC, has them on the border of Hell in somewhere called the "Limbus infantium", and most Catholics in past centuries agreed with him, but the believe is less widely held nowadays, although it's still not common. I'm ashamed to say I don't know much about Protestant or Orthodox beliefs about the fate of babies who die unbaptised, but I think there's considerable division there too.

I agree that there is considerable debate going on with respect to this issue - one on which I am woefully under informed. However I brought it up not so much to debate the issue, but more or less to point at a hole which I believe existed in the argument I was responding too (i.e. that through faith and only faith can one attain salvation). And if in fact neonates who are miscarried *do* make it to heaven, then it strikes me that it simply cannot be faith alone.

As to the first half of your second point, the standard Christian rebuttal (whether you accept it as logically valid or not is up to you) is that it's impossible to love God/have faith/be saved/whatever formalism they're using without trying one's best to be a good person. Most, but not opverwhelmingly most, Christians do believe that e.g. Buddhists, no matter how virtuous, cannot enter heaven, as far as I can tell.

I actually completely agree with the argument. However, I disagree with your attribution of it - in other words I don't think it's the standard J-C practice. The reverse is typically what I'm hearing - that it's impossible to be a good person without loving god. That is the argument I do not accept.

C.S. Lewis's justification for this, in "Mere Christianity" is that all humans are sinful, and as such no-one deserves salvation. It's offered as a gift; to receive it one has to choose to accept it. Trying to earn it or win it is useless - the most you can do is fail to deserve it by an infinitely smaller margin - so if you refuse to accept it it's your own fault.

I don't think that if salvation did exist and did work like that, it would be legitimate to criticise God for not having made the fact more obvious, so that the argument isn't entirely valid, but I think it does answer the specific criticism's you've raised.

I guess I'm not quite following you here. C.S. Lewis is argung that salvation is independent of both faith and deeds? Again, I'm no theologian, but I'm not quite sure that's how it works (or at least how it was taught to me).

I think a lot of this discussion is off of the original issue that I was trying to raise which is just that I don't think Christianity provides an acceptable account of why one should be moral. Why should you have faith in God, go on missionary trips, spread the good news, or try to "save" people (could easily be construed as a "moral" action)? Of course there are numerous reasons why an individual would choose to do those things, but presumably, one such motivation is to avoid hell.


<edit for html>

[BiggJawn]

85. "Buyer's Remorse"?

Are you referring to the "buyer's remorse" I might be feeling over having beem sold that pile of fairy tales for all those years, or are you trying to say that I'm not truly happy about rejecting all that mythology?

What "anxiety"? That I might think that I COULD have made the wrong choice? No, that's not it.
The anger is from the realisation that my life was under a cloud of threat from some mythic being in the sky who was supposed to be pissed at me for something his first 2 creations did supposedly 6,000 years ago, and that millions still live in slavery to that threat and the predation of the "priests" of that cult. THAT is what makes me angry.

Perhaps you came up with or signed on to that supposition in order to feel better about yourself. Having some doubts of your own, perhaps? Did pastor tell you that we Atheists are "in rebellion" and know it, that we're unhappy being "seperated"? Well, what else could he say? if his flock started to seriously question what he's feeding them on Wednesday night and Sunday morning (and now Saturday evening, too, in some churches) they might fall away, and that'd make it hard to maintain the payments on that Denali his wife drives.

And if you'd like to seem some truly ecumenical criticism of Religion, why not ask me what I think of all this violence being done over fucking CARTOONS?

[FM Arouet666]

136. Really now, lets look at few things.

I don't see many threads opposing Zoroastrianism or condemning belief in Apollo. Why, where is the relevance? The current administration is supported by evangelical christians, the president is an evangelical, the GOP political agenda is packed with conservative christian issues. So why the alleged attacks on christians?

Manners is not what guides DU members from commenting on the other religions you mention. They are no relevant to the current social political debate.

You feel that you are being bashed? How do you think others feel that do not hold your staunch religious belief. Attack on abortion, womens rights, minority rights, no funding for sex education world wide, except abstinence, yes fight aids, but no condoms, support science, yet agree with intelligent design, refute global warming, fight stem cell research. Thou shall not kill, but kill we do, a war for oil and middle east dominance. All supported by the evangelical christian right who put Chimp in office. Looks like a lot of people are being bashed by the christian administration.

Once christan believers? Psychic need? Buyers remorse? I especially like the psychic need business, I keep channeling an ancient being which tells me to bash christians. He tells me it my duty to humanity and the ancient city of Atlantis. Wish he would stop telling to wear women's cloths and sing ABBA songs in the nude. Damn ancient spirits, but I digress...........

[Zebedeo]

143. Well, I did not have you in mind when I made that comment

I have no idea of your past beliefs or non-beliefs. Several other atheists on this forum have stated that they were once Christian believers. Usually they raise this point as a means of establishing that they know what they are talking about when they condemn Christianity.

The fact is, I have a lot of respect and admiration for atheists like you. Why? Because you obey God. Whenever you help the sick, the weak, and the poor, you are obeying God and thereby doing good. Whenever you love your mother and father, whenever you act as a friend to other people, whenever you stand up against injustice, whenever you oppose evil, whenever you support the downtrodden, you are doing God's will. Though you don't believe God exists, you are inadvertently doing His will. Those things I admire.

Now, to your point:

I don't see many threads opposing Zoroastrianism or condemning belief in Apollo. Why, where is the relevance? The current administration is supported by evangelical christians, the president is an evangelical, the GOP political agenda is packed with conservative christian issues. So why the alleged attacks on christians?

Manners is not what guides DU members from commenting on the other religions you mention. They are no relevant to the current social political debate.

Come on. What about Islam? Is Islam "relevant" to current events? What with all the killing and burning going on over a political cartoon? Or the fatwas and acts of terrorism and oppression and genocide going on right now? Please note: I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO BASH ISLAM. I am just pointing out that there is a double-standard. It is OK to bash Christianity, and post threads that say that Christianity is unethical, or Christians are stupid, etc., etc. ad infinitum. But you would never see a similar thread about other major religions.

Also, please let me know how you believe that Christians are somehow responsible for limiting "minority rights" or that they are to blame for global warming. Christians have been at the forefront of fighting for minority rights for a long time. Did you not hear about a guy name of Rev. Martin Luther King and his wife Coretta? What are they, chopped liver? Go to any skid row, and you are likely to see that the people who are there caring for the poor and the helpless are Christians -- usually a lot of Christians, in the form of organized missions. Ever heard of the Salvation Army? C'mon, admit it. Christians do a tremendous amount of good in this world.

Don't blame Christians for what the Bush administration does. The Bush administration is just that - the Bush administration. It is not some kind of emissary of Christianity.

Did I get carried away with the "psychic need" comment? Maybe. It could be that it applies to some and not to others. Or it might not apply at all. As I said, who knows? But there has to be some explanation for why some people on this forum take such joy in condemning a particular religious faith that they once held.

[FM Arouet666]

149. Well, I do have a comment, albeit delayed

Too much work, I have to go back a few days to catch up.

What about Islam? Yes, Islam is relevant, and If I had more time I would post a few thoughts. I am an equal opportunity atheist, I will take ANY religion to task. Killing for a cartoon? But, it's offensive to their religion? Too bad, killing another human being, except in self defense, is wrong. Killing Iraqis because of mythical WMDs is not self defense and neither is killing in the name of your god because someone drew a negative cartoon. Don't get me going......

Christian responsibility. You are right, some Christians are very active when fighting against the death penalty, for minority rights, womens rights, etc. Liberal Christians are well represented on DU, but they are a minority in Christendom. The christian movement as a whole is a group which supports the republican party, support which allowed Chimp to be elected.

Your damn right I blame christians for what the Bush administration does, the majority of christians support Bush. However, you are equally correct that one should not blame all Christians for the sins of the current administration. Liberal Christians have expressed tolerance, as you did in the opening paragraphs of your last post. And being a Christian does not necessary mean that one is a republican, intolerant, bigoted, a moran.

I do not take joy in denigrating another's faith, however, I also do not take joy in being called evil, immoral, damned, condemned to hell, or ignorant because I do not accept faith, a supernatural, or believe as other's do.

Just a thought............

[Zebedeo]

144. Global warming?

Evangelicals urge action on global warming

If link doesn't work, see www.yahoo.com homepage right now.

[FM Arouet666]

150. Thanks, I was looking for this to reply to your last post

My prediction is that evangelical Christians will tire of the republican party. The GOP lies, wars, empty claims of support for women and minorities. If all Christians were liberal, living a life like that ascribed to Jesus, I would not be as oppositional. I would not believe, but I would understand and be more tolerant. Respect begets respect.

Part of the problem is that liberal Christians are baring the brunt of criticism aimed at the conservative wing of Christianity. Our little sounding box on DU is limited, the real enemy is not present to attack. However, liberal christians also bare some of the blame. Defending extreme views, offering posts which are anything but tolerant. And yes, atheists are to blame as well, condeming the individual for the sins of the group.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Who's "bashing" christians ?

If anyone was, your buddy would have worn out his little fingers hitting the alert button and this thread would have been locked or deleted.

You whine about how we are bashing you when we criticize religion and now instead of honestly discussing the op's questions, you use it as another opportunity to whine that we're bashing you.


Apparently, you WANT us to bash you.


Sorry, we're all out of wood today.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. If by "buddy" you mean me

Then no, I wouldn't bother. I think the thread clearly does come under the category of "bashing" but I don't see that as any reason to alert on it - there are plenty of valid reasons to "bash" most religious positions (although this isn't one of them), and while I do think that the standard practice of doing so in a manner calculated to cause offense just slightly less blatantly than removes the option of claiming not to be trying to cause offence is contemptible in the extreme, I don't think it justifies alerting.

And I take considerable issue with being accused of not honestly discussing the OP's question, given that I've done exactly that and you've then completely ignored what I've posted and instead simply amused yourself insulting the "Persecution Pity Party", in which you seem to be including me.

Now then, enough ad hominem, let's try my main point again: Christianity specifically teaches that good works are not rewarded; salvation is by faith and not by works; to be saved one needs to become the sort of person who does good works just because they're good without thought of reward. You've said elsewhere that "Other Christians disagree about the works/Heaven thing" - skimming the thread, I didn't see any saying so in as many words; which post do you think implies that?

Whether or not they do, they're in a minute minority: salvation by works is very, very explicitly not part of both Catholic, Orthodox and nearly all mainstream Protestant theology. Remember that many self-proclaimed Christians on DU hold beliefs very different to mainstream Christianity, and in particular are likely to be very keen on the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, and to try and emphasise works rather than faith for that reason. That's in direct contradiction of nearly all Christian teaching on the subject, though.

If you want something to hold against Christianity (I don't know why I bother with that "if"...), you'd be better off with the fact that salvation *is* by faith and not by works: I certainly find it distasteful that a Christian is considered to be saved, while a non-Christian who's by any standard lived a better life isn't. But that's nothing to do with the OP.

[beam me up scottie]

125. Um...you should have waited for my answer before launching that diatribe.

I wasn't "ignoring" your posts, I didn't even notice them.:eyes:


And if you had bothered to read mine, you'd notice that I didn't offer my opinion regarding the op.


My point was to show mr Z that since other christians ALSO disagree with him, his claim that the op does not "understand" salvation was based more on HIS belief than anything the poster said.

I also was trying to illustrate how ridiculous it is to attack the op without reading his posts.

Consider that mr Z posted this at 10:05pm :

The poster has a very warped view of Christians and seems to be entirely ignorant of basic Christian doctrine. S/he does not seem to understand that salvation is through faith, not works.

which was long after the op had already posted his explanation at 8:25pm :

And you are correct in implying that it is a bit unfair of me to single out J-C. It's the religion which I have the most experience with (I used to be devoutly religious) and knowledge of - which, admittedly, is not as much as some.

The op was more than willing to admit that singling out christianity was a bit unfair and posted his reasons for doing so.

mr Z accused him of "bashing" and bragged that he didn't NEED to read the op's posts in order to know that he was bashing christians.



THAT was my point.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

131. Response:

Firstly, point of information: I can't find anywhere in the thread where Zebedeo claims not to have read the OP. Can you point me at it, please?



If you respond to a subthread I've begun and which only one other person has posted to "on my side" with a criticism of plural individuals (e.g. post 72) I think it's reasonable for me to assume that I'm one of them, and that you're including my post in the criticism.



While Zebedeo's language is more confrontational that I'd be inclined to use, I think his (and, elsewhere, my) point that the original poster appears to have misunderstood Christian teaching on faith and works and that this essentially invalidates the original post is entirely valid.

Your attempt to rebut that point by claiming that other Christians disagree with it (in e.g. 77), while not *entirely* incorrect, is, I think, flawed: Christians who don't believe that "salvation is by faith and not by works" (or by e.g. faith and sacraments) are a very small minority, and almost exlusively very liberal and with very loose interpretations of scripture. You can find people who call themselves Christians and believe *anything*, but that doesn't make it Christian teaching.

[The Straight Story]

60. Um...being good does not get you into heaven, and morals are based on love

your neighbor as you do yourself.

The motivation is based on love and be as god in that sense - ie, he makes the sun to shine on both the good and evil, et al.

[greyl]

78. I wouldn't say that.

I'd say "The system of Christian ethics is inconsistent, inadequate, and irrelevant to the community of life."

Wasn't Jesus' behavior exemplary?

[papau]

95. You make that value judgement based on what? I look forward to your book

on ethics.

[greyl]

97. They weren't exactly value judgements.

My statement wasn't coming from a place of "right" or "wrong", it was from a place of "works" or "does not work". To answer your question anyway, my opinion comes from hard evidence that exists in our world. I also provided a link to provide some reasoned support for my statement, for anyone who is generally (edit:genuinely) interested.

"I look forward to your book on ethics."

I'm convinced you'd do little more than skim it.

[papau]

99. "do little more than skim it" and see if I agree - of course - if it was

worth more of an effort I'd of course give it more time and analysis.

But I suspect it would be at the same intellectual level as the link you posted and its "controversy as to what statements attributed to him (Jesus) might actually be original" - a Fox news made up topic of the day if I ever saw one!

As to what works, the silver rule is said to be better than the golden rule, do you agree?

[greyl]

100. You make that value judgement based on what?

You've provided zero intellectual argument about the material at the link, you've only provided a baseless value judgement of it.

I'm confident that you didn't read the link.
I'm confident that you aren't interested in an authentic conversation.
I know I won't read your reply to this, because I'm placing you on ignore.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exiled in America]

121. Not all Chrisitans believe in the afterlife...so...there goes that theory.

[Inland]

127. He could have spoke of people seeking a reward instead of "christians'

But then the post 1) wouldn't have made acts by christians unethical by definition and 2) would have included atheists and 3) wouldn't have been inflammatory and 4) would have been silly on it's face, because then we would all have to admit that we do very few ethical things in life by that definition.

And what's the fun in something that's NOT inflammatory?

[beam me up scottie]

130. Actually you seem to be on your own here, Inland.

I see many other christians are discussing the op without any flames whatsoever.

And since the questions the op has are ABOUT religious beliefs, it would have been impossible to word it without including religion.


Unlike some people on this board who think that Democrats shouldn't support equal rights for homosexuals, the op isn't at all intolerant.

[varkam]

133. If I've said it once...

I really am not sure what, if any good this will do, but I'll try once more to help clear things up for you. Since you tend not to actually read any of my posts, I'll put the main points in nice, big bold letters. It'll save you some work.

1) What I propose does not make Christians unethical by definition. As Exiled noted, there are (presumably) some christians who don't believe in an afterlife, therefore the expectation of a reward in afterlife would not apply to them. I am the first to admit that not all Christians / Buddhists / Atheists / Jews / Muslims operate on a principle of reward and punishment. It's certainly possible for an individual to act without motivation of reward or the avoidance of punishment.

What I propose is pointing out what I take to be a flaw in the *system* of J-C normative ethical theory. There is a difference between the system of J-C normative ethical theory and Christians themselves.

2) I have never proposed that atheists are somehow more ethical than anyone else. In fact I have stated outright in this thread that religion is not necessarily an indicator of moral character (I have known some very good Christians who I try to be more like and some very bad atheists / agnostics whom I think should be jailed - and visa versa). To be clear, that includes myself as an atheist. In other words, I have never claimed that I, myself, am somehow more ethical by virtue of not being a Christian. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I want it to try to make it clear for you.

3) It was never my intent to be inflammatory or to offend. Mainly, I wanted to stimulate discussion on the topic. That's why I chose the title of the thread that I did (The title "An issue of motivation" just didn't seen to be quite as eye catching) because I figured it was something people would read. But, perhaps I misjudged the mood of these forums (after all, I am new here). I will be more cautious with my wording in the future.

4) If you take my view on ethics (which I'm sure you do) then yes, very few things in life would be purely ethical . From psychological egoism to attaining reward to avoiding punishment, few things would be completely ethical. That's not to say returning a lost wallet and hoping for a reward is not necessarily *bad*, it's just not completely virtuous.


Hope that helps.

[Inland]

138. The proof of the pudding is in the postings.

It's what you actually posted, not what you say you posted. It's inescapable. Maybe YOU should read them more carefully.

[varkam]

139. If you would be so kind...

as to actually point out the posts in question, I certainly would appreciate it. Since you've been reading them so carefully, I don't figure you'd have any trouble finding the posts where I claim:

a) Christians are unethical.
b) An individual atheist is always more ethical than an individual christian.
OR
b1) I am more ethical than an individual Christian.
c) I have been excessively inflammatory, rude or offensive.

Seeing as how it was not my intent to say / do any of these things, I would be indebted to you if you would point them out to me. TIA.

[Inland]

140. Where did I say those things? More disingenuous bullshit.

I didn't say you said an atheist is always more ethical. In fact, as I point out, your intent is to level, to make it impossible for a christian to be more ethical, by your definition, no matter what he does by a) presuming an motive which b) you then decide makes the act unethical. This invention makes it impossible for anyone to be ethical, IMO, but you had less interest than a workable concept of ethics than making sure nobody "claimed the moral high ground". The fact that you did it by removing any moral ground whatsoever didn't trouble you, as long as the christians couldn't claim it.

And if you didn't say christians were unethical, you merely said christianity is unethical as your thread title. Yeah, that's not excessively inflammatory, just inflammatory enough.

It hasn't escaped me that you put accusations in my mouth. What I actually accused you of is bad enough, but you would rather defend yourself against the accusations I didn't make than the ones I did. Gee, wonder why?

[varkam]

141. I can see you're still not reading my posts.

I have stated multiple times in this thread that, by this definition, it is in fact possible for a Christian to be more ethical than an atheist. What counts is motivation. I'm going on the assumption that a Christian can in fact do a moral deed for it's own sake. If you disagree with that assumption, then I suppose you would be right. I think you're still confusing the system with an individual.

And again, it's not my intent to "level". However, if it is your assumption that a Christian is *always* more ethical than *anyone else* simply by virtue of being a Christian (which it appears it might be from your earlier posts), then I could see how you might make that misinterpretation of my claims.

In addition, I am not trying to "remove any moral ground whatsoever". There is still a moral ground here, and indeed one in which Christians can be a part of (if you read the first paragraph of this very post).

As far as your accusations:
Here's a few from a couple posts up -
But then the post 1) wouldn't have made acts by christians unethical by definition and 2) would have included atheists and 3) wouldn't have been inflammatory and 4) would have been silly on it's face, because then we would all have to admit that we do very few ethical things in life by that definition.

And what's the fun in something that's NOT inflammatory?

Here, you are saying that 1) The post makes Christians unethical by definition. 2) The post makes atheists immune to issues of motivation. 3) Is inflammatory. 4) Sets too high a standard for truly ethical behavior.

I responded to all those accusations in turn in my post directly preceding yours. If taking that as the meaning of your post is "putting accusations in your mouth", then I suppose I just don't know what words mean.

[Inland]

142. "Here, you are saying that....." No, I'm not.

Why quote me just for the sake of paraphrasing to a different meaning? To make me type? To set up a strawman to knock down?

I'm saying what I'm saying. Address any of that if you want, any time you want.

[beam me up scottie]

145. Oooooooooooo, you're almost there...

a couple more posts and you'll get the patented Inland "WHAT - EVAH !" :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

146. You're fighting the losing battle once again, Inland.

Digging deeper and deeper...

[Zenlitened]

147. "The only way to be moral is to do the right thing...

... for the sake of doing the right thing."

Well put.

Always easier said than done, of course.

But there's more truth in that simple statement than will be found in a hundred holy books.

[ThoughtCriminal]

148. A seldom discussed reason for avoiding sin

I never have understand the moral justification for attonement through sacrifice. But maybe it's something like this -

The suffering of Christ was actually equivalent what the sins of humanity and the pain was a direct result of and proportional our sins. Moral people, are repelled by the idea of inflicting suffering on the innocent. Perhaps this is how it works: Simple guilt. If you don't behave, you have added to the pain inflicted on Christ. Because of our perception of time, tense and causality, this is not very apparent - we don't see how what we do today can have anything to do with what happened centuries before.