Can Atheists be Moral?

[MedfordMan]

"And if living the good life is the reward why do you think people can't live a good life without religion"

There are no good people, so no one lives a good life.

Christians are still sinners and the frequently fall short (act selfushly), but they live better (more selfless) lives than they would If they were not Christians

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm not "Roman" Catholic. And the pope is not "my" father. No one is without sin. I feel that people without a biblical basis for considerations make personal choices (founded on "feelings"), and not spiritual ones...

No one is without sin ...

why is that an obsession christians rely on as though not sinning would be an insurmountable obstacle ... what are the sins you are unable to quit making.


I feel that people without a biblical basis for considerations make personal choices (founded on "feelings"), and not spiritual ones ...

since when is the book of forgeries a spiritual document or reading a book is the way to live a spiritual life - what kind of spiritual life do you live as a sinner when the religion of Antiquity is nothing else but the Triumph over evil as the means for admission to the Everlasting - as prescribed by the Almighty, the sole purpose in pursuit of immortality.

" What are the sins you are unable to quit making"

Well the definition of sin is acting not in concert with the perfect will of God, but for the sake of this argument let's simplify that to acting selfishly.

The point many here have tried to make is that any of us CAN act morally (for the sake of simplicity, selflessly)

But the standard is not what we can do, but what we do do.

Here's an exercise that illustrates the conundrum.

Just using what happened today, on the left side of the paper write down all of the selfish things you did to someone or said to someone today. When that is done write down all the selfish things you did and said, but which no one actually heard of others are actually unaware of. Finally write done all the selfish things you thought but did not say or do.

In the right side of the paper write down all the selfless things you actually did known or unknown to others (you don't get credit for the stuff you thought of but didn't do)

Now multiply the two numbers by the number of days you've been alive.

The point that takes shape, none of us can ever expect to enough selfless things to make up for all the selfish thing we've done or are doing.

.

Well the definition of sin is acting not in concert with the perfect will of God, but for the sake of this argument let's simplify that to acting selfishly.

that is not true what is not tolerated is whatever is evil - perfection, the triumph over evil is unrelated to a direct involvement with a deity. on your own, sink or swim.

The point that takes shape, none of us can ever expect to enough selfless things to make up for all the selfish thing we've done or are doing.

none of us can ever ...

you are simply wrong "ever" that is if you ever expect to accomplish admission to the Everlasting. the original religion of antiquity

the short and simple is you are in direct conflict with the original religion - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - as prescribed by the Almighty.

what are the sins you are unable to quit making.

you did not answer the question, something about selfishness ... I can not quite remember the last time I have committed evil or that I ever did knowingly, none knowingly now as a matter of habit, till forever ... eventually with tailwind the spirit can take off in flight till the final Triumph puts them over the edge - that's when you are judged. never before christian. never a sinner.

 

[MedfordMan]

I respect your right to choose not to follow God's perfect will.

At least you have your defense planned for when you will stand in front of God, at the great white throne of judgement.

Good luck going forward.

 

[Blues Man]

A person can serve his own interests while serving the interests of others the two are not mutually exclusive

One can act selflessly with no expectation of reward and with no fear of punishment if he chooses not to.

One who acts selflessly because he is afraid of eternal damnation if he doesn't or expects an eternal reward if he does is not true in his intentions and is indeed acting solely to avoid punishment or to gain reward

Now tell me who is the fool and who is making the purest choice?

Multiple problems with the perspective, behind your flawed premise.

First, provide an example of where someone is acting selfishly and selflessly at the same time.

Second, the issue is not whether someone can occasionally act selflessly (act morally), but whether they can BE moral.

One can't BE moral unless they are selfless all the time.

i got news for you, cup cake, no one fits that bill, all that time.

Third, I didn't become a Christian because I was afraid of Hell (and I don't personally know anyone who became a Christian for that reason). I became a Christian because living life as a non Christian wasn't working for me.

There is no purer choice, because neither man is pure enough.

An impure being can make a pure choice just as a person can serve both himself and others.

As a volunteer wilderness first responder I was taught at all times to guard my own safety first before rendering aid so I was not only looking out for myself but I was also rendering aid to people in need.

I suppose you think I should have thrown my personal safety to the wind so as to be selfless but tell me what good is having 2 people die on a mountain?

And I am not addressing why you became a Christian I am addressing the motivation for living well.

I notice you didn't say you didn't become a Christian for the promise of an eternal reward.

A man who will live a good life of his own free will knowing there is no reward has the higher moral ground than the man who lives the same good life but is motivated by a reward or does it because his god tells him too because if there were no reward or no order from god then he wouldn't be motivated to do good work.

I simply disagree with the choice of the word "pure". There are no "pure" people, we are all compromised by sin.

Can sinful people make "pure" choices? We'll never know because we can only see the outside actions, not all the internal and external factors that go into each and every choice. Only God can see what is in a Man's (or Woman's) heart, so only HE truly knows what motivates any individual act.

It appears that you had to twist yourself into a pretzel to come up with an example of an act which was both selfish and selfless at the same time.

I don't know that foolishly getting yourself killed is more selfless than using discernment to aid people in a way that is more helpful to their situation.

I note that you want us to have a broad, open mind and generous spirit regarding the competing motivations of a non Godly person appearing to act selfishly, but won't extend the same courtesy to the Godly person appearing to act selflessly.

I can't say that I don't ever think of Hell and that those thoughts don't occasionally change my behavior, but even as a Christian I have as hard a time conceptualizing Heaven as you do Hell. As a selfish sinner saved by Grace I probably don't think about either enough.

I know this is your main point and I'm going to give it to you, but not in the way you expect.

Ultimately you are asking whether a non Godly person can be a better person ( using mankind's standards) than a Godly person.

The simple answer is yes. The church is a hospital for sinners, who realize they've been infected by sin. That hospital is open to all, even those who have done some very bad things.

The more complicated answers is this. An understanding of Christianity should produce in the Christian a profound awareness of all of the bad things they have thought, said and done. This is the weight of our sin that we lay down at the cross and seek forgiveness for.

Like the apostle Paul that has awakened in me misunderstanding that I am the chiefest of sinners.

Put more simply, because I am truly aware of how short I've come from being good, I see everyone else as better than myself.

I never said people were pure. In fact I distinctly said they were impure but are capable of making pure decisions. A person can make the choice to endanger himself to pull a child of a complete stranger out of the path of a car.

That is an impure person making a pure choice

How often does that scenario occur?

Have you done that personally?

If there are no pure people and just few random "pure" acts how do we decide who is less impure?

What if the person who pulled the child out off the way of the car did so as a "pure" act, but he\she was a pedophile, a serial killer or worse a Republican owner of a large corporation?[/QUOTE]

maybe you should learn how to use the quote function

that you imply that a business owner who is republican is worse than a serial killer tells me all I need to know about you.

If your sense of morality is that fucked up it is a waste of time communicating with you

 

[MedfordMan]

Rest assured that I don't make any statements lightly and everything I say is working towards a larger point.

As we have explored throughout this thread morality is a human concept that mirrors man search for Godly morality or righteousness (rightness with God)

You see under the human standards of morality as expressed on this forum, there are some who have argued that the folks who run corporations or belong to the Republican party are inherently immoral. (That's the problem with human standards of morality)

Under any human standard, most of us would agree that pedophiles or serial killers act immorally.

You have been attempting to make the point that even non Christians can choose to do a righteous act and by doing so they are better people because they don't need God's help (ie. the crutch of religion, the fear of Hell, the promise of reward)

I have been subtly undermining the premise of that argument by making a counter argument that because mankind regularly acts unrighteously (it's the default of the sin nature) no single righteous act can make up for all the unrighteous acts and so mankind is not (and cannot be) righteous (right with God).

Put simply we cannot save ourselves, so attempting to become more righteous by going it alone and occasionally doing a righteous act is a foolish not a praiseworthy course of action, because the person taking that course is fooling themselves.

 

[hobelim]

Rest assured that I don't make any statements lightly and everything I say is working towards a larger point.

As we have explored throughout this thread morality is a human concept that mirrors man search for Godly morality or righteousness (rightness with God)

You see under the human standards of morality as expressed on this forum, there are some who have argued that the folks who run corporations or belong to the Republican party are inherently immoral. (That's the problem with human standards of morality)

Under any human standard, most of us would agree that pedophiles or serial killers act immorally.

You have been attempting to make the point that even non Christians can choose to do a righteous act and by doing so they are better people because they don't need God's help (ie. the crutch of religion, the fear of Hell, the promise of reward)

I have been subtly undermining the premise of that argument by making a counter argument that because mankind regularly acts unrighteously (it's the default of the sin nature) no single righteous act can make up for all the unrighteous acts and so mankind is not (and cannot be) righteous (right with God).

Put simply we cannot save ourselves, so attempting to become more righteous by going it alone and occasionally doing a righteous act is a foolish not a praiseworthy course of action, because the person taking that course is fooling themselves.

VLADIMIR: Our Savior. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other . . . (he searches for the contrary of saved) . . . damned.

ESTRAGON: Saved from what?

VLADIMIR: We are all born mad. Some remain so.

 

[Blues Man]

Rest assured that I don't make any statements lightly and everything I say is working towards a larger point.

As we have explored throughout this thread morality is a human concept that mirrors man search for Godly morality or righteousness (rightness with God)

You see under the human standards of morality as expressed on this forum, there are some who have argued that the folks who run corporations or belong to the Republican party are inherently immoral. (That's the problem with human standards of morality)

Under any human standard, most of us would agree that pedophiles or serial killers act immorally.

You have been attempting to make the point that even non Christians can choose to do a righteous act and by doing so they are better people because they don't need God's help (ie. the crutch of religion, the fear of Hell, the promise of reward)

I have been subtly undermining the premise of that argument by making a counter argument that because mankind regularly acts unrighteously (it's the default of the sin nature) no single righteous act can make up for all the unrighteous acts and so mankind is not (and cannot be) righteous (right with God).

Put simply we cannot save ourselves, so attempting to become more righteous by going it alone and occasionally doing a righteous act is a foolish not a praiseworthy course of action, because the person taking that course is fooling themselves.

There is nothing to be saved from.

And one can choose to live a righteous life without religion.

We invariably choose our own actions.

That a man is occasionally selfish or even petty does not in any way mean that he is incapable of living a good life with a love and respect for others as his driving tenet.

I never once said anyone was perfect or that anyone could be perfect but that people are not perfect in no way means they cannot strive to be no god is necessary only a choice on the part of the individual

 

[ding]

Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.

 

[Blues Man]

Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.

And I choose not to.

 

[MedfordMan]

Part 2:

Here's where I may lose you, but I love you enough to be honest with you even when God's ways are hard for me to understand and accept.

The next logical question (I'll ask it myself to speed this up) is, if we can't be righteous on our own, did God just set us up to fail.

God sent HIMSELF as Jesus Christ who lived a perfect life and then died in the cross for your and my sin (unrighteous acts). By doing so, God (through Jesus Christ) paid the price necessary to redeem us (or save us from our own unrighteousness) and by doing so makes (present tense purposeful) righteous (right with God).

Now here's where it gets crazy.

The gift of salvation (redemption from sin) is a free gift. All one need to do to accept it is to be humble enough to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (essentially choose to believe in him and his ability to save and agree to be directed by him).

Now here's where it gets really crazy.

This gift is an example of God's grace (receiving what we didn't earn and don't deserve), so God offers it to all regardless of what they've done in their past.

 

[MedfordMan]

Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.

And I choose not to.

Why not (honest question)?

 

[Blues Man]

Part 2:

Here's where I may lose you, but I love you enough to be honest with you even when God's ways are hard for me to understand and accept.

The next logical question (I'll ask it myself to speed this up) is, if we can't be righteous on our own, did God just set us up to fail.

God sent HIMSELF as Jesus Christ who lived a perfect life and then died in the cross for your and my sin (unrighteous acts). By doing so, God (through Jesus Christ) paid the price necessary to redeem us (or save us from our own unrighteousness) and by doing so makes (present tense purposeful) righteous (right with God).

Now here's where it gets crazy.

The gift of salvation (redemption from sin) is a free gift. All one need to do to accept it is to be humble enough to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (essentially choose to believe in him and his ability to save and agree to be directed by him).

Now here's where it gets really crazy.

This gift is an example of God's grace (receiving what we didn't earn and don't deserve), so God offers it to all regardless of what they've done in their past.

So be as wretched as you want but accept Jesus

I'd rather strive to live as well as I possibly can with no illusion that I will be granted eternal life or some such nonsense

 

[danielpalos]

should we trust women if they can't bear true witness and make appointments with us?

just one "little test".

 

[MedfordMan]

God's free gift is not a license to sin or a get out of jail free card.

It's an expression of love by God that seeks that no one shall be separated from HIM in the after life (Hell) other than those who chose to be separate from him.

I respect your decision to make that choice for yourself.

 

[MedfordMan]

should we trust women if they can't bear true witness and make appointments with us?

just one "little test".

DP,

Your test might function better if we had any clue what you are talking about.

If you are referring to a scripture, include the scripture so I can read it for myself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I respect your right to choose not to follow God's perfect will.

And I respect your right to believe any hilariously goofy iron aged fairy tale you like.

But I don't respect your faith, your dumb belief, or your arrogant threats

 

[BreezeWood]

I respect your right to choose not to follow God's perfect will.

And I respect your right to believe any hilariously goofy iron aged fairy tale you like.

But I don't respect your faith, your dumb belief, or your arrogant threats

.

And I respect your right to believe any hilariously goofy iron aged fairy tale you like.

do you suppose they would have any religion at all without their self absorbing 10,000 page christian bible or if that book were authentic they would chose the truth over the dark path it presently leads them on ...

But I don't respect your faith, your dumb belief, or your arrogant threats

the problem is they have been getting away with it since the 4th century ... persecuting and victimizing the innocent -

without the least remorse for their centuries of sinning.

 

[danielpalos]

actions speak louder than words, chics.

 

[ding]

Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.

And I choose not to.

Your call.

 

[ding]

Part 2:

Here's where I may lose you, but I love you enough to be honest with you even when God's ways are hard for me to understand and accept.

The next logical question (I'll ask it myself to speed this up) is, if we can't be righteous on our own, did God just set us up to fail.

God sent HIMSELF as Jesus Christ who lived a perfect life and then died in the cross for your and my sin (unrighteous acts). By doing so, God (through Jesus Christ) paid the price necessary to redeem us (or save us from our own unrighteousness) and by doing so makes (present tense purposeful) righteous (right with God).

Now here's where it gets crazy.

The gift of salvation (redemption from sin) is a free gift. All one need to do to accept it is to be humble enough to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (essentially choose to believe in him and his ability to save and agree to be directed by him).

Now here's where it gets really crazy.

This gift is an example of God's grace (receiving what we didn't earn and don't deserve), so God offers it to all regardless of what they've done in their past.

So be as wretched as you want but accept Jesus

I'd rather strive to live as well as I possibly can with no illusion that I will be granted eternal life or some such nonsense

I have no illusion either.

But your premise that it’s lip service is flawed. Some people do pay lip service but I’m not sure it is intentional as you seem to imply.