Can Atheists be Moral?

[Hollie]

Australian Cardinal George Pell, one of Pope Francis’ closest advisors, has been found guilty of sexually assaulting two choirboys, becoming the most senior Catholic cleric ever convicted of child sex crimes, it was announced Tuesday.

An Australian jury unanimously found Pell guilty on one count of sexual abuse and four counts of indecent assault against two choir boys at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne in the 1990s.

He was in December found guilty of the sexual assaults, but only on Tuesday was a wide-ranging suppression order thrown out, allowing media to report on the case.


I love people who say, "these things happened a long time ago". Well who knows what we will find out in 20 years after the current wide ranging suppression orders are finally thrown out.

I "love" people who say that homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery, and all other such deviate "lifestyles" are not SINFUL but NORMAL! It would seem that they are not or no one would really care. I'm sure though that there is a growing consensus among "special" groups that such indulgences are merely learning experiences to be enjoyed.... Will we continue down the same ladder? I don't see the bottom yet!

If it were just the priests getting it on no one would know or care.

So don't lump homosexuality in with fornicating, bestiality or adultry.

Remember Sesame Street?

So can atheists be moral when priests cannot?

What makes you think religious people are moral?

What makes you think they are not moral? And what is your basis for morality?

You might want to get familiar with history. There is nothing to suggest that religions and religious people have behaved “morally” as compared with non-religious.

 

[Hollie]

If it were just the priests getting it on no one would know or care.

So don't lump homosexuality in with fornicating, bestiality or adultry.

Remember Sesame Street?

So can atheists be moral when priests cannot?

Yes. I go up north with my nephews and all their friends. I wouldn’t harm a hair on their heads.

What gets me is the cover ups and how high up this goes.

They say the Vatican is one of the largest gay communities in the world.

I’m ok with two priests f----g. In fact the best jokes start out with so two priests are f----g.

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... Frankly, there is NOTHING biblical regarding celibacy among Christian nor Jewish clergy. It is a BIG PROBLEM and it now is publicly rising its ugly head! Vain traditions are not a foundation GOD established!

And it seems the clergy would be the perfect place for a young closeted gay boy to go if his religion has raised him to believe gay sex is wrong. So they go into the priesthood and find other men just like them

The worst of them are pedophiles.

Most priests are able to suppress their gay urges. Some you find on to catch a predator or in gay chat rooms or gay bars.

Ps. God never visited.

Jesus is GOD in the flesh and an historical absolute.

As a westerner, the expectation is that you would simply believe in the gods associated with western culture.

Had you been born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would have been a Koran thumping jihadist.

 

[sealybobo]

So can atheists be moral when priests cannot?

Yes. I go up north with my nephews and all their friends. I wouldn’t harm a hair on their heads.

What gets me is the cover ups and how high up this goes.

They say the Vatican is one of the largest gay communities in the world.

I’m ok with two priests f----g. In fact the best jokes start out with so two priests are f----g.

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... Frankly, there is NOTHING biblical regarding celibacy among Christian nor Jewish clergy. It is a BIG PROBLEM and it now is publicly rising its ugly head! Vain traditions are not a foundation GOD established!

And it seems the clergy would be the perfect place for a young closeted gay boy to go if his religion has raised him to believe gay sex is wrong. So they go into the priesthood and find other men just like them

The worst of them are pedophiles.

Most priests are able to suppress their gay urges. Some you find on to catch a predator or in gay chat rooms or gay bars.

Ps. God never visited.

Jesus is GOD in the flesh and an historical absolute.

As a westerner, the expectation is that you would simply believe in the gods associated with western culture.

Had you been born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would have been a Koran thumping jihadist.

That’s some scary brainwashing there huh? Think about what they said that wasn’t even true but they said it as absolute fact.

1. Jesus was god in the flesh? That’s the story but to any non Christian, what evidence do you have this story is true? Ancient books from corrupt churches? Seems man made up to me.

So Jesus being god in the flesh is certainly not an absolute

2. Even if we gave them that this character existed, at best the stories told about him can only be explained as embellishing a martyr story to its highest level.

If there were any truth to the story jews would have all converted. If they weren’t compelled why should I today be ?

 

[danielpalos]

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?

 

[sealybobo]

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?

The way I see it is if all the Jews who were there when they removed the tomb and Jesus was gone. If all the people in that town didn’t start Christianity then how did greeks who weren’t even there buying it?

It’s a great story especially to people who are open to religions.

 

[MedfordMan]

So let me ask

Can a religious person be immoral?

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

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

No tell me who is the fool and who is making the purest choice?[/QUOTE

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.

 

[Blues Man]

So let me ask

Can a religious person be immoral?

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Taz]

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?

We don't, for the same reason nobody takes you seriously.

 

[ding]

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 don’t know of any pure humans. No one is all good or all bad. I doubt medford is arguing that point. The reality is that most people do act selfishly from time to time. If less people acted selfishly from time to time the world would be a better place.

Thanks for being a first responder. That is commendable. We are called to be stewards. I don’t believe you protecting your life is what he is talking about though. I believe he is talking about being selfish at the expense of others.

I believe Medford is saying that it is a logical fallacy that Christians live the good life because of a reward after living the good life or a punishment for not living the good life. Living the good life is the reward.

It’s just easier to live the good life when one has a personal relationship with God. At least that has been my observation.

 

[Blues Man]

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 don’t know of any pure humans. No one is all good or all bad. I doubt medford is arguing that point. The reality is that most people do act selfishly from time to time. If less people acted selfishly from time to time the world would be a better place.

Thanks for being a first responder. That is commendable. We are called to be stewards. I don’t believe you protecting your life is what he is talking about though. I believe he is talking about being selfish at the expense of others.

I believe Medford is saying that it is a logical fallacy that Christians live the good life because of a reward after living the good life or a punishment for not living the good life. Living the good life is the reward.

It’s just easier to live the good life when one has a personal relationship with God. At least that has been my observation.

If one is not all good then by definition he is not pure.

And I never said anyone was pure I said an impure being can make a pure choice

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

 

[ding]

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 don’t know of any pure humans. No one is all good or all bad. I doubt medford is arguing that point. The reality is that most people do act selfishly from time to time. If less people acted selfishly from time to time the world would be a better place.

Thanks for being a first responder. That is commendable. We are called to be stewards. I don’t believe you protecting your life is what he is talking about though. I believe he is talking about being selfish at the expense of others.

I believe Medford is saying that it is a logical fallacy that Christians live the good life because of a reward after living the good life or a punishment for not living the good life. Living the good life is the reward.

It’s just easier to live the good life when one has a personal relationship with God. At least that has been my observation.

If one is not all good then by definition he is not pure.

And I never said anyone was pure I said an impure being can make a pure choice

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

I’m pretty sure I answered all that in my last post.

 

[danielpalos]

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?

We don't, for the same reason nobody takes you seriously.

i resort to fewer fallacies than you right wingers.

 

[Taz]

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?

We don't, for the same reason nobody takes you seriously.

i resort to fewer fallacies than you right wingers.

You're a total fool. I bet you don't know how to use soap.

 

[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.

 

[MedfordMan]

Sure. Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Blues Man]

So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

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.[/QUOTE]

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

 

[danielpalos]

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?

We don't, for the same reason nobody takes you seriously.

i resort to fewer fallacies than you right wingers.

You're a total fool. I bet you don't know how to use soap.

ad hominems instead of valid arguments? how worthless is that under Any form of Capitalism.

 

[Taz]

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?

We don't, for the same reason nobody takes you seriously.

i resort to fewer fallacies than you right wingers.

You're a total fool. I bet you don't know how to use soap.

ad hominems instead of valid arguments? how worthless is that under Any form of Capitalism.

Gawd, you’re stoopid.

 

[MedfordMan]

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.

 

[MedfordMan]

The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life.

Still, the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts.

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.

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[/QUOTE]

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?