DarkBronzePlant

I was just perusing this thread, and a question came to mind. It seems like the bulk of the responses echo the quote above by ex-preacher; that is, theists can be moral if they allow themselves to question/disagree with god. But isn't that just synonomous with saying that a true, 100% theist cannot be moral, as it is only in deviating from theism that one can be moral?

Vorkosigan

It might seem that way,DarkBronzePlant, but theistic belief is compatible with morality, because there are certain brands of theism -- Quakerism, or UU, that are extremely secularized and humanistic. These people I consider extremely moral.

Michael

DRFseven

Such as Richard Nixon.

DarkBronzePlant

Good point. I realized awhile after making the post that "theism" is a very broad term, while I was narrowly thinking of Jack Chick-esque Christians (probably because, in my experience, Chick-Christians are the most willing to accuse athiests of immorality based solely on their lack of belief).

copernicus

I wonder if there is any real difference at all between the behavior of theists and atheists. I would like to believe that atheists are less prone to going off into psychopathic aberrations because they do have to work harder at justifying their moral rationalizations. But it is probably more likely that the way theists and atheists behave has more to do with their childhood upbringing than the type of rationalizations that they put on their own behavior. If you were subjected to a lot of violence as a child, then you probably tend to see violent behavior as a normal method of resolving disputes. If you are an atheist, you might tend to think that other people provoke you into fights a lot. If you are a theist, you might feel the same way, but you can quote biblical authorities to validate your nastiness, too.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

luvluv

"There are plenty of morally repugnant commands given by God in the Bible. The sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael if you're Muslim) is only one example."

First of all, might I remind you all that Isaac was never sacrificed.

"Certainly. But for the person who believes that an eternal reward awaits those who obey while an eternal hell awaits those who disobey, then it's not really a hard choice, is it? Doing the right thing is always good. Doing the right thing when you know you will be richly rewarded is not that praiseworthy. Doing the right thing and expecting no reward and even a possible punishment (with no eternal compensation) is the highest good."

I think this statement embodies an extroidinary lack of understand on how Christians make their everyday decisions. Visions of heaven and hell do not dance around my head everytime I make a moral decision, and the existence of heaven and hell were not influential in my decision to become a Christian. I think that entails a remarkable simplification of the behavior of human beings. C.S. Lewis (sorry to keep bringing him up) wrote an excellent article that is in, I believe, Present Concerns, about the impossibility of Christians using Heaven or Hell as a permanent motivation. He described it as a psychological impossibility. I'll look for that article and retype some of it tommorow. But suffice it to say that such an objection is even undone by the Christian doctrine of salvation through faith. After I have accepted Christ, I simply do not believe that my moral failings can send me to hell. Martin Luther King probably did not believe that he would go to hell if he did not oppose segregation, but he probably thought he would be untrue to his commitment to God if he failed to do so. Likewise, I do not feel I will go to hell if I do not volunteer my time or give to the poor. I believe I am saved through faith and nothing can change that. I give because I am trying to become more like God.

The fallacy in your argument, from a Christian standpoint, is that IMMEDIATELY after salvation a Christian is immune to the coercion of the doctrine of hell, because he thenceforth and forever believes it is not possible for him to go there so long as he believes in God. Therefore all of the moral actions are voluntary, failure to do so does not undo salvation. If you really are an ex-preacher, you should know that.

Beyond that, when I see a person suffering, I am moved by my compassion, just as you are. But as a Christian, I discipline myself to act upon the principle of helping people whether I feel particularly compassionate towards them or not on the basis of principle. I do this because I am impressed by the example of God ("Who sends his rain upon the just and the unjust") not because of the promises of rewards or the threat of punishment. I think that notion displays a lack of understanding of human motivation and a lack of understanding about Christian theology.

"I don't think you can show that MLK believed that God commanded him to oppose segregation."

Not literally, no. But I think he did see it as a logical extension of Christ's teachings. Have you ever read "Letter to a Birmingham Jail"?

"If he believed that his actions would earn him heaven, then it's hard for me to see that any earthly sacrifice was too burdensome."

Again, this is fallacious on several accounts. First of all, if you believe MLK sacrificed his life purely on mercenary grounds then I believe you are simply wrong. Secondly, it is nearly impossible for a Christian, who is a human being, to be more responsive to distant rewards or punishments that he has to believe in by faith than he is to the immediate punishments which are real and present to him. In short, it is much more noble of King to face the present dangers, which required no belief, than it would be to face dangers which, despite his faith, he knows may or may not exist. It takes moral courage to give up the present on the promise of the future. No matter how great the promise of the future is, it is still simply a PROMISE, which may or may not come to pass. Anyone who nevertheless faces his own death, an immediate consequence, for the sake of a promise is showing moral courage.

King sacrificed his life, not just his physical existence, but his own ambitions, goals, even his family, not for a greater cause. I would argue that he did not do this for the distant reward of heaven, and certainly not for the threat of hell, but because he felt it was right. And even if his faith does entail a belief in a glorious afterlife, I think that in no way detracts from his willingness to face great and immediate personal danger, which is a greater sacrifice than willingness to face a danger that may not exist.

echidna: A.

turt:

"But on the whole, people are better off relying on thoughtful exploration of moral issues, independent of authority."

I think this is unsupportable. First of all, it presupposes an intelligent population with some knowledge of history and some knowledge of current events. That isn't most of the world. Throughout history people have come to some pretty bad conclusions, and have had those conclusions reversed based on authority. I think your argument is true, only if you are 100% sure that the authority Christians ascribed to is always wrong, and that people are generally smart enough and (an entirely different issue) well educated enough to choose between the two. We might both agree that the people who are must susceptible to authority are the people who would be most frightening in a society without one.

Maybe it would help if somebody described what they meant by moral?

copernicus

Are Christians and other theists any better at describing what is meant by moral? If you define it as "behavior that God approves", then you simply substitute a phrase for a word. The interpretation of that phrase is still left up to the individual, and individuals have sometimes committed mayhem and murder to win the argument.

Moral behavior is judged on a scale of rightness and wrongness. Where does the scale come from? It comes from our childhood and adult experiences. If you were raised by the Ku Klux Klan, you might consider it immoral for whites to marry people of color. You would also probably be equipped with a number of scriptural quotes to show that God disapproves of racially-mixed marriages. Maybe someone else can throw Bible quotes at you that will knock the racist nonsense out of your head. Unless, of course, you are able to trump the other person first with your own arsenal of Bible quotes. At the very least, your own Bible quotes can serve as a handy defensive shield against the race-mixers.

luvluv

Where does the Bible say anything against race-mixing?

copernicus

Luvluv, read <a href="http://www.christianseparatist.org/catalog/truthunveiled.html" target="_blank">The Truth Unveiled</a>, and it shall set you free!!!

Just to tantalize you a little, here is an excerpt from the book's promo:

The real truth is that anyone can use the Bible to justify any kind of behavior at all. It's your interpretation against theirs. Don't bother telling me that the author of The Truth Unveiled is full of crap. I don't think that most Christians would be fooled by the book into believing that God really does promote so-called "racial purity". Most Christians tend to pick and choose the verses that they take seriously. Then again, so did the author of The Truth Unveiled. That's my point.

Vorkosigan

First of all, might I remind you all that Isaac was never sacrificed.

Nitpick: in the original story, Isaac was sacrificed, at least that is what many scholars think. However, in later ages Israel gave up human sacrifice, and Isaac got a stay of execution.

The clue is in the text. If you read, after Abraham & Isaac are done, Abraham returns home alone. The editor added the ram, but forget to send Isaac back with Dad. Additionally, there is some textual variation on the location of the ram, which in some texts is in the thicket, in others, behind Abraham.

NIV Gen 22:19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.

See? No Isaac in there anywhere. An excellent book on the Documentary Hypothesis and the origin of the OT stories is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman.

Michael