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.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

he didn't act by choice or by love, but by rote "duty"

(Leaving aside that acting by choice could be seen as a "duty," because that's semantic...)

OK, I get what you're saying. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons can be as harmful as, or indeed worse than, doing the wrong thing.

I missed that element of it in the paraphrase, I guess.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

but he did - he gave money to charity.

i see your point about public proclamations of piousness, but isn't the poor guy proclaiming faith doing the same thing?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Leaving aside that acting by choice could be seen as a "duty," because that's semantic...

Actually, it's not merely semantic - tithing was a legal requirement above and beyond the tax to the state, prior to the Roman takeover. Many at the time felt it a requirement to continue to tithe to the (Hewbrew) church even after the Romans got rid of that law.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Hm. Granted...

What I meant was that one could say "my love for people compels me to act." That could be expressed as a duty, though it is done for the right reasons. It would be a personally-imposed obligation or responsibility, not an external one. What you're talking about is the "I don't want to do it, but it's a legal/traditional responsibility" duty, applied externally and complied with because it's necessary, not because it's desired.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

you're still missing the point about intent - Jesus's message was all about INTENTIONS, not mere actions. When the subject came up, the question was "what can I do to enter the kingdom?". Having lived under The Law (as you would know it) for generations, Jesus was ripping up all of those rules and regulations and replacing them with intentions. It's not enough to give because it is a duty or a commandment - one must give because one Loves. Not "loves to give", but "Loves". period.

you also miss the context of "have mercy on me" - Jesus had a few chapters earlier already redefined prayer - the proclamation of faith discussed isn't a "public" one in the sense you are thinking:

6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

not just what i'm talking about - it was what He was talking about.

[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.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

well, it wasn't a quote as such - it was original me (or at least entered my head as original me - someone else might have said something similar as well). :)

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

If Person A stands on a street-corner and Prays loudly, along the lines of "Thank you god for not making me rich, beautiful, brilliant, witty, graceful, athletic, and modest. Not like THAT person who is poor, dirty, and homeless. I thank you oh Lord for giving me the opportunity to make something of myself in this world from my Trust Fund. I pay exactly 10% of my earnings to The Fundamentalist Church Of Anti-Evolution. Thank you God for gracing this planet with the fabulous entity that is ME."

Another person goes to the drive-by chapel and says "Oh God, have mercy on me, I try to be good and I sometimes fail."

We don't know if the 2nd person tithes to the church. We don't know if the 2nd person gives to the church above the tithe level (or below). We don't know if the 2nd person gives to Habitat for Humanity, FONZ, World Wildlife Fund, DC Arts, etc..

The story is blasting the person for building himself up. The next line is something like "He who exalts himself shall be humbled. He who humbles himself shall be exalted."

[the-mishka.livejournal.com]

It is your quote when I quote you then! :P

But yes I have heard something similar recently - if you saw my rant about evangelical atheists - it's a thought or quote that also came up during that particular argument.

[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."

[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.

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.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

At any rate, WRT the original quote...

Yeah, I'm with you and Joe on that part. *grin*

[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.