summing up, 'cause it finally summed up in my head

[acroyear]

Being Christian is neither the exclusive requirement of, nor fundamental evidence of, being a moral person.

I have met far too many moral, caring, sharing and contributing atheists to think that atheism is proof of amorality.

I have met and have read about far too many assholes who call themselves "Christian" to ever think that claiming to have faith (any faith) or being part of a church is automatically proof of leading a moral life.

If anyone throws out the word "atheist" like it is automatically proof of their position, I will redirect them to this post.  Regardless of whether or not the subject actually is an atheist, it is IRRELEVANT to their moral character.

Comments

[dashrippington.livejournal.com]

Awesome... thanks!

[petricat666.livejournal.com]

I have found assholes to not be exclusively of any particular faith or lack thereof. They exist everywhere.

Since I've been thinking of my in my head book of philosophy "Everything I need to know I learned from the theater."

In Godspell (and hence in the gospel according to Matthew)

The parable of the rich man and the poor man in which the rich man does everything by the book, giving 10 percent of his income to the poor, faithfully attending services and praying "two times a week". The poor man just proclaims his faith. Guess who is shocked to end up in hell!

Every time I hear a person tell me that they know that they are going to heaven after they die...I think of this tale.

We ain't gonna know until we end this life whether there is or is not another one or where we are going to be.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Here, I'm not interested in the afterlife. The issue is all about those who claim that atheism is inherently amoral here on earth, and about those who would "vote for X and not Y" merely because one is "Christian".

Fear of the afterlife is not enough to keep the religious man moral. Lack of fear of the afterlife is not inherently accepted by atheists as freedom to live an amoral life. both of those are claims made by the religious in order to permit social oppression of atheists and use that in turn as justification for trying to eliminate "atheistic science" from academia.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

so in effect, the parable most closely resembling what i'm saying is that of the Good Samaritan.

the problem with that parable as its taught is that most people, if they remember anything about it at all, have no idea what Jesus meant by "Samaritan".

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I can't guess. To me, regardless of how internally faithful the rich man is or is not, he's doing something concrete to add to the good in the world - he's giving to charity. I don't see why proclaiming faith is supposed to be in and of itself better.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

My read on that was that Jesus's lesson was one of intent - are you truly faithful and giving, or are you doing good deeds in order to be seen as one doing good deeds. The Lord knows the difference, as he sees into the hearts of men and seeing past fake piety.

Hence that difference remains - in the sense of doing good deeds, he is a moral person, and I have no problem with that (unless/until he then turns that reputed morality into a political tool later, which is MY concern).

Jesus is looking deeper than I am at this point/post.

This same difference of action vs intent is covered more deeply and directly (and angrily) when he arrives at the money-lenders tables in Jerusalem.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

He is giving to the church "and I pay taxes on all that I get" ... the point of the story is that the one who prayed loudly and was pointedly pious didn't take anything away from his prayer; he didn't do anything else good. The person who prayed "Oh God, have mercy on me, sinner that I am" went and did good works.

At another point in the show he says something along the lines of "beware of the pharisees. Listen to them, pay attention to their words but do NOT follow their actions. For they lay burdens on people and do nothing themselves. They stand on the corner and go about with broad phylacteries on their robes, and demand to be called 'Teacher'." which leads into Alas for You

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

The parable of the rich man and the poor man in which the rich man does everything by the book, giving 10 percent of his income to the poor, faithfully attending services and praying "two times a week". The poor man just proclaims his faith. Guess who is shocked to end up in hell!

Reading this as written, my answer would be "the poor man." The rich man acted--the poor man merely said the words.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

it is a paraphrase of the original, and as such is missing some of the context. read my other comments.

the point is that the rich man only followed the rules - he didn't act by choice or by love, but by rote "duty". The entire point of Jesus's ministry was to get people to recognize INTENT rather than mere action. Is your intent to Love or is your intent merely to follow proscribed rules to "get into heaven"?

A poor man who Loves his brother, even as he knows he can not always help him, is better than a rich man who only gives what he thinks he is required to give and nothing more.

[the-mishka.livejournal.com]

This Jew here agrees. We're commanded to act, not simply to be pious. And of course, Jews don't believe people go to hell... Whether or not the rich man is pious, he is doing something to benefit others. If the poor man volunteered his time in pursuit of social services rather than just praying in church or synagogue, he would be more righteous. It should not be a question of having money or not having money or having faith or not having faith that lands a person in "heaven" or "hell" or "olam ha ba".

At any rate, WRT the original quote: "Being Christian is neither the exclusive requirement of, nor fundamental evidence of, being a moral person."

It pissed me off when my exbf (who is a charismatic Christian fundamentalist) insisted that I was acting "Christian" when he agreed with my Jewish moral actions, and insisted that having "good morals" was synonimous with "being Christian." Ummm No. On closer comparison, our value system did not align equally (of course it wouldn't!).

I agree entirely with the quote. I know many (who I would consider) moral atheists and participants in religions (in addition to and other than Christian or Jew). And being a good **insert religion or lack thereof here** is NOT synonymous with being a moral person. I have also seen too many immoral (by their OWN standards) so-called Christians etc etc etc. And the story about the Pharisees is as true today as it was then for both Christians AND Jews.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Actually in the play it is a question of who gets into heaven. Also, see my latest comment to Vval, my memory of the story isn't that the one person gave 10% and the other nothing. It was that the one person was basically saying "Dear God, thank you for making me perfect and giving me everything. I go to church, pay my taxes (and I think it says tax not tithe in the script), and I pray twice a week (get that TWICE a week)." The other is quieter and just asks for mercy for being a sinner.

The next line is about he who exalts himself shall be humbled and he who humbles himself, shall be exalted.

We don't know if the 2nd person tithed or gave to non-church charities or both. We can assume that the first person did NOT give to charity beyond what was 'required' for a person of his standing.

[eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com]

that's not in the bible

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

The argument that atheists are de facto amoral has always made me laugh. Whenever you get into depth with this argument, it appears that the person who proclaims it believes that theism (insert denomination here) is the only thing which prevents people from committing (insert acts here- usually it's something like rape or murder or something. you know- dogs and cats, living together; mass hysteria.)

It's *so* much fun to turn this argument around and say "okay, so if you were to find out tomorrow there's no god, would you then be (insert act here.)? Because if the only reason you're not doing those things *NOW* is because of a fear of your god then you're much scarier than I am."

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

quoted from below:

There was a study recently released about about religion and extra-marital affairs, granted requiring (anonymous) self-reporting which stastiticly isn't the best methodology. It found that for people whose self-assessed "faith" was about equal, it was more likely that you would have an out-of-marriage affair if you did not go to church regularly (once a week to once a month).

I read that as, fear of afterlife punishment was not as good a deterrent to immoral action as being regularly reminded of your accepted moral obligations through a supportive (and sometimes punishing) social structure.

The religion may be a good moral grounding or enforcement FOR ITS MEMBERS. The problem comes when it assumes that its morality is universal, or that it should be.

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I may not be athiest per se (more agnostic than anything else), but it is not any god or gods that prevents me from committing ammoralistic acts, it is the knowledge of what I believe to be right.

When I was in college, a roommate was cheating on her boyfriend (who happened to be one of my oldest and dearest friends, but that has almost nothing to do with the actual story I'm relaying here). She couldn't understand why I was so angry at her for cheating on him, since she considered it to be none of my business (I introduced the two of them, did she think I wasn't going to say something to him?).

The more often she cheated on him, the more often she went to church. One began to notice this as a bit of a trend.

I finally left a quote on the door (we had quotes on the corkboard on the door) that said "When honor dies, when trust is a useless thing - What use is life?"

She responded with a notecard that said "the opinions expressed on this door are not necessarily those of the occupants. Jesus died to forgive our sins, and it is not for humanity to judge others."

I responded with another notecard (yes, I know this was terribly passive agressive, but the direct approach was getting me nowhere): "The opinions expressed on the door are at least those of one of the occupants. Jesus may have died to forgive your sins, but not so you could make more of them."

It has always astounded me when someone went to church to be absolved because s/he couldn't follow the spirit of the laws to which s/he declared her/himself to be faithful.

Oh also...

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

I was talking to someone about a similar concept today, earlier. I was speaking about those who do everything with the expectation of being paid back. That every action is accounted for and an expectation is then placed somewhere (to be called up at any time) to get back an equivalent thing. I was saying that this concept is entirely foreign to me; in fact it is the very opposite of how I look at things. One does things for others believing that you will get precisely nothing in return other than the knowledge that perhaps you were of assistance. And if *that thing* isn't enough for you, then you have not done the thing with the proper spirit to increase joy, and alleviate negativity. You have only increased the burden.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Playing devil's advocate...

It depends on how you define "moral." Morality is the designation of what is good and what is evil, and it can be based on religious or secular standards. Before you can determine the truth of the statement, "Being Christian isneither the exclusive requirement of, nor fundamental evidence of, being a moral person," you need to be precise about what "moral" means.

I'll also point out that "being Christian" is not the same thing as "claiming to be Christian." The sentence is about the former, but so many of the responses to the post are about those that profess Christianity, not those who are Christian. This can lead to asking "what does it mean to be Christian?" but that's a digression for someone else to tackle.

I would like to point out that if the Bible is used as the source for morality, then we have the following:

Matthew 22:37-39
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

And also the first commandment (or two commandments, depending on the translation): I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

In both cases, it is acknowledgment and love of God that comes first. How you treat other people is secondary.

[the-mishka.livejournal.com]

In both cases, it is acknowledgment and love of God that comes first. How you treat other people is secondary.

Is this the (a?) Christian interpretation of commandment #1? It's not the Jewish interpretation. I'm proving your point on how one defines morality.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Morality based on religious standards is meaningless because it can not be inherently shared, and therefore accepted as a baseline for common social law.

A person can accept a moral code taught to them through their religion, but that moral code is and always should be meaningless to the state.

The non-theocratic, democratic state that respects the rights of the individual over the organization thus can ONLY acknowledge a moral code that is OBJECTIVELY derived from agreed-upon principles that owes nothing to a religious origin.

Whether or not you love God or fear some afterlife punishment is IRRELEVANT to the state and the society as a whole. If fear drives you to doing the right thing from an objective standpoint, or love, is meaningless.

There was a study a while about about religion and affairs, granted requiring (anonymous) self-reporting which stastiticly isn't the best methodology. It found that for people whose self-assessed "faith" was about equal, it was more likely that you would have an out-of-marriage affair if you did not go to church regularly (once a week to once a month). I read that as, fear of afterlife punishment was not as good a deterrent to immoral action as being regularly reminded of your accepted moral obligations through a social structure. The religion can be a good moral grounding FOR ITS MEMBERS. The problem comes when it assumes that its morality is universal, or that it should be.

A lot can of universally acknowledged Good can be derived from "do what thou wilt, lest thou harm none", or its parallels "love they neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

In fact, most evangelicals would decry the first (which is a common phrase used among pagan groups) as implying amorality because it implies permission to harm yourself (which the other two do not) to which I greatly disagree - if you harm yourself, you therefore harm those who love you. They also might interpret it as freedom to cheat as long as its secret, but really a secret harm is still harm, even if it is never found out. Again - intention is key.

In any case, all of this requires that one THINKS about ones actions.

In Fripp terms, if an action has consequences but is necessary, the consequences can be handled - we pay our own tab. If an action has consequences and is unnecessary, the consequences will be beyond our means - we will be unable to pay our tab and will be in debt to others.

In Episcopalian (and Catholic) interpretations, the two commandments from Matthew (both originated in Deuteronomy) are one in the same - if you acknowledge that the Kingdom of God is within you (Luke 19), then to not love your neighbor is to not love God.

Other sects tend to ignore Luke 19, especially the Jehovas Witnesses, and it drives me up a wall when their fliers talk on and on about "The Kingdom" while they totally miss the vital nature of how that one line changes EVERYTHING.

The sentence is about the former, but so many of the responses to the post are about those that profess Christianity, not those who are Christian.

I brought out the exceptions, but only to make a specific point, related to the previous Hitler thread that started this.

Most Christians, especially in the political theocratic right simply don't think about things beyond their labels, labels given to them by those with a political agenda.

And thus my larger problem with labels - if one gives a label a sense of "good" and then a person gives themselves that label, that person inevitably is in a position to control you by relying on you reading them by the label and not by their individual actions. CS Lewis shows this ploy at least once in The Screwtape Letters.

[kowari.livejournal.com]

Ok controvesial statement (and this is my opinion, feel free to disagree):
It is actually MUCH EASIER to be an atheist who is genuinely "moral" than a theist (zzz not quite the right term but you get what I mean).

When an atheist acts in a moral way, they have specifically chosen that course of action. They have generally reflected or decided often in spite of religions to act in a moral way. They have no obligation to do so, no sub cultural peer group pressure, no expectations other than those they place on themselves.

Religious people who act in a "moral" way (which for the purposes of this is the same but undefined) are often told from a young age that this is correct behaviour. They are told that a God or Gods can tell when they are being naughty (much like santa claus) and they therefore should act "moral"ly. They are less likelyto have examined why, to search to understand why they should be moral, and what being moral actually means. Much religious Dogma implies punishment in an afterlife for acting in an immoral way. Fear is a great motivator. And lip service goes a long way to assuaging these inner fears, and also saves face in the subculture. Which is where the parable people are talking about comes into it. The poor man is genuine, the rich man, while doing all the "moral" things doesn't believe in them - it's just lip service.

The atheist has no such threats. I have great respect for atheists in the first instance (it is very hard to beleive there is no greater power out there looking after us all). I have greater respect for "moral" ones. I have just as much respect for "moral" Religious people.

I respect anyone who is genuinely moral, no matter who they are.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Actually the Rich man in this case did believe in them - he just also believed it was "enough". follow the rules and all is well. neither morality nor getting into heaven can be reduced to mere rules.

The issue is the labels - the idea that one Christian's morality (and derivation of that morality from The Bible) is the same as another's.

The religious right attack on our society here in America (and I hear Australia's been going through its own) is all based on playing up that inherent assumption in people, that "our Christianity is the same as yours", translated into "our values are the same as yours", which then becomes "this person does not share your faith therefore he can not share your values". It is inherently false but all too easily fallen for in our current political climate.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Religious people who act in a "moral" way (which for the purposes of this is the same but undefined) are often told from a young age that this is correct behaviour.

If you read in detail the above discussion on the Godspell example, you'll see this has been my (and Jesus's) point all along.

[thewhitedragon.livejournal.com]

Dim Morales as Variant

Sorry, the C++ geek in me had to say it. Heh.

Dare I toss this into the mix?

[the-mishka.livejournal.com]

This link has been sent to me twice by a friend who I call an evangelical atheist as he insists on trying to convert me in his own way:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations

This is a codification of morality without God.

(I've also argued that this codification actually renders Secular Humanism an actual religion though he argues that without "blind faith in a supernatural being" there is no religion - but that's another arguement for another day).

Re: Dare I toss this into the mix?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

is "religion" the belief or the community? or just the community bound by the shared belief?

as for the affirmations, that's nice, but its just a codification - not the derivation that renders a religious-definition of the same moral statements superfluous.

in order to be an objective morality, it still has to have the supporting philosophical research and discussion that reaches those as the baseline statements from which a law may follow. i'm not saying it doesn't exist, but that codification alone isn't enough for what I was suggesting earlier.