TrueThinker

Actually the real question is: Is there anyone on earth who is perfectly good does what is right all the time?

The answer, of course, is no. That is why Christ came. Paul is not saying nobody can't do good things without Christ. The problem is we do bad things also and you never free yourself of doing those bad things to become perfectly good. Paul is saying only Christ can free us completeyfrom sin if we are willing. This not to say that you will become perfectly good the moment you accept Christ. It is an ongoing process.

This could become a long-winded discussion. I don't have too much time now so I must stop here and I will try to continue where I left off sometime this evening. Respond as you wish to the small portion I have posted.

Amos

Of course there is in a relative world where good and evil do not exist.

The concept good and evil is mythology bound and can be opposite to each other in different mythologies. To be free from religious indoctrination is to be free from good and evil, The problem with this is that before we can be set free from religious morality we must be set free from the slavery of sense perception through which we become social animals . . . which is why Christ became a solitary individual.

TrueThinker

Newsflash: We live in a world where good and evil do exist. Is good and evil mythology bound?

Can you tell me that the Semptember 11th attacks were not evil?

Excuse me for saying this, but the stuff you write makes it seem like you are high on some drug.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: TrueThinker ]</p>

doodad

My paraphrased bible provides a little different perspective on the passage of 5:4. It says "Christ is useless to you if you are counting on clearing your debt to God by keeping those laws; you are lost from God's grace."

The passages involving Paul that have been cited in Galatians and in the preceding posts refer to the laws of Judaism, not some law of Christianity. Paul was trying to sell Jews on the idea of converting to Christianity or was trying to tell them how to practice Christianity versus their old ways of practicing Judaism.

I don't think it was fair to imply that the Judaist law kept people in sin because the existence of the law was not the motivation for misbehavior. It was futile to attempt to obey all the Judaist laws for a lifetime without breaking some of them. This is the part that Paul and other evangelical Christians conveniently fail to point out.

Christianity has its own set of rules, but they're usually not referred to as laws. However, the net effect the same. In other words, if you murder someone or steal under Christian doctrine it's the same transgression as if you were living under Judaist law.

Sojourner553

There are a number of religious people here who acknowledge that atheists can be moral (and that some religious people are immoral).

The following gives some more depth to this, starting with Boswell's report of the famous skeptic philosopher, David Hume's death:

****************
The English philosopher David Hume is sometimes presented as an example of a virtuous, but atheist philosopher. Adam Smith once said of David Hume:

"Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and
since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise
and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit".

Hume, recognized that religious individuals expected him to live a
NON-virtuous life because he was an atheist. In response, he once joked
that he considered himself to be "a sober, discreet, virtuous, frugal, regular,
quiet, good-natured man--OF A BAD CHARACTER." (emphasis mine.)

Knowing Hume's reputation as a virtuous man, James Boswell, a religious
Christian, wondered if Hume might recognize his "error" and recant his
atheism just before he died, so that he could go to heaven. Boswell therefore
paid a call on David Hume on July 7, 1776--as the latter lay on his deathbed.

What Boswell found was a smiling, good-humored man who had no inclination
to convert on his deathbed. Indeed, Hume shook him up when he insisted
"that the morality of every religion was bad"-- and that "when he heard a
man was religious, he concluded that he was a rascal, though he had known
some instances of very good men being religious."

Boswell was especially disturbed by this last remark, as this was just the
"extravagant reverse" of what was claimed against "infidels". He was also
taken aback how Hume appeared so comfortable with the idea of his own
mortality-- and his lack of fear of any hell. Boswell pondered over what
could be the basis for Hume's morality, since it was not the Christian faith?
Boswell related how he had bad dreams for several months following Hume's
death trying in trying to understand this.

***

Skeptical/Agnostic Position that Religion Makes Society Inhumane and Immoral

Just as conservative religious groups have charged that atheism is destroying the moral fiber of society, some skeptics have returned the
favor--insisting that it is instead religion that is harmful and immoral in society.

Over the course of history, it can be seen that church institutions condoned the heinous practices of slavery and torture -- including the
burning of witches during the middle ages. Consider this quote by Mark Mark Twain taken from his PEN WARMED IN HELL:

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church,
after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set
about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole
hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who
discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung
pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to
do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson
killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is
gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the
mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his
religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.

According to Bertrand Russell, "Men tend to have the beliefs hat suit their passions. Cruel men believe in a cruel god and use their
belief to excuse cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and hey would be kindly in any case."

Per Russell, genuine moral rules are NOT based on external religious ommandments, but on love and intelligence from within:

"No obedience to moral rules can take the place of love, and where love is genuine it will, if combined with intelligence, suffice to generate
whatever moral rules are necessary."

and,

"I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue, and that virtues based upon lies can only do harm."

...

Conclusion--Importance of Religious Tolerance and Moderation in Religious Communities

As we have seen, not only does religion serve as a comfort to many individuals-- helping people to cope during a personal crisis--such as
bereavement, divorce, disability, unemployment, etc.-- Religion also undoubtedly appears to HELP people to lead a better, civilized life
within society, (as was the observation of Voltaire and others). Religion
can also lead one towards finding spiritual meaning in their lives.

On the other hand, history has ALSO shown that abuses--such as witch-trials, slavery, and religious wars-- have too often been the response of conservative, fervent religious/ideological groups who argued they were acting in the name
of their God (or equivalent ideology). The centuries of wars and torture among Catholics and Protestants are one example. Jews would likewise agree that most of the "immoral" pogroms and persecutions that they faced over the
centuries-- had been at the hands of people who believed themselves to have been "devout" (but conservative) Christians.

Much of the modern interpretation of Judaic-Christian ethics are relatively recent humanist additions. That is, practices which were once
considered acceptable--heretic persecutions, witch-burnings, slavery, and capital punishment for MINOR crimes (such as petty theft), are now largely considered" inhumane"--this despite the fact that there is no SPECIFIC religious injunction against them.

It is no coincidence that when Iran recently established a Moslem fundamentalist state, that it ALSO re-instituted an "eye-for-an-eye" legal
system --which included, for example, cutting off a hand for stealing. It is NOT that Islam itself, is a more cruel or inhumane religion than
Christianity!--During the Middle Ages, the roles between Christians and Muslims were largely reversed--where Islamic society was relatively-speaking, the more religiously tolerant AND advanced civilization of the two.
European Christians were then considered the backward area of the world--ie the "Third World" of their time. The difference is that today, Islam does not have a strong base of liberal, humanist leadership in most countries--but
instead tends to be controlled by authoritarian, fundamentalist regimes. (See Section XI, for a definition of humanism and fundamentalism.)

It was primarily liberal religious groups and freethinkers who first fought for democracy and human rights. Emphasizing humanistic principles
that go back to Jesus' pure message of loving one another, it was these groups who first challenged the institution of slavery, and also sought to
improve social conditions for the poor and labor classes during the Industrial Revolution.

The problem is that humanistic liberal hristian groups have declined in political power during the last decades. With the subsequent rise in fundamentalist-minded religious groups, can also be seen the return to some of the older views of authoritarianism and intolerance to outside religious sects. It is the opinion of this author, that it is no coincidence, that in
tandem with this trend, we are seeing a return to the deep-rooted hostility against scientific, rational solutions towards such serious problems as overpopulation and environmental degradation.

(taken from:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS3.TXT)" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS3.TXT)</a>

doodad

I know a number of Christians who haven't harmed anyone lately. Yes, there are non-believers who are nice people. Why then, are they the object of scorn? What's to be gained by branding someone a fraud unless that person is hurting you personally? I'll have to admit that some ministers make real fools out of themselves, particularly in the fundamentalist camp, but a lot of ministers spend little time bashing non-believers.

doodad

Is there such a world in existence? Even non-believers have concepts of morality, or what is right and what is wrong. There have been threads aplenty devoted to defining what is right and what is wrong.

doodad

Oh my, but we cannot use love as a basis for morality. Afterall, it's not RATIONAL or LOGICAL.
Remember?

Amos

Yes good and evil are mythology bound and there is natural law.

The September 11 attack was an act of retalliation performed by social animals and was evil.

Amos

Yes there is such a world and the concept some/all atheist try to follow is natural law. The "do unto others" or "do not unto others" thing is good in itself but tends to lead to neutrality and pacifism.

Maybe you fail to understand that religious law has a purpose other than just making people nice and loving towards each other. It is kind of lke the Church must be the whore of Babylon if Babylonian towers are ever to be transformed into Towers of Ivory.