On morality, Christian style

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

On morality, Christian style 03.21.04 (3:31 pm)   [edit] A common argument given by Christians to support their theory of God is the moral argument. This is a two-part argument in which it is stated that (1) we need God for morality in the world and (2) we need God to bring justice into the world. The first statement seems to rely on the notion that morality is exclusive to religious belief; and, more specifically, on a belief in and reverence for the Christian God. Apparently, we, as humans, are incapable of comprehending right and wrong without the guidance of a supreme being. This is a theory that would be difficult to argue with if everyone did accept Christianity's concept of God. However, since many do not and are still capable of exercising morality, this theory is shot. Athiests are not inherently immoral or even amoral, and neither are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, or any number of folks who do not believe in the Christian God. The second argument on morality is that God provides the ultimate justice- without God, a form of eternal chaos would ensue, in that we would have no ultimate punishment or reward for our lives to be received in death. By this idea, those who do good deeds in life are rewarded in death and those who perform evil acts in life are punished. This provides a basic incentive to do good. The problem with this argument is that there is no need for a judgment of our lives after we die, as we are subject to justice in life- all actions have consequences and repercussions. This notion also denies any meaning or purpose to this life, except for a means of determining our "life" after death. Furthermore, according to the Christian religion, to attain salvation, you must accept Christ as savior and repent for your sins. And that's it. This negates the very principle of morality, and of justice. To quote mblog (and the inspiration for this post): "the notion of salvation through faith alone undermines the very concept of morality. If Hitler can ask for forgiveness on his deathbed and go to heaven, as Jerry Falwell stated he hoped happened, then living a life free of sin is pointless. Also, the notion that you can commit a sin against me, but not have to ask me for forgiveness, but get it from God also undermines this concept. If you can do whatever you want to me, but be forgiven for having faith alone, the faith does not do much good." In other words, Christianity's concept of salvation through faith in Christ opposes the idea of true morality. By implementing moral standards and striving to do good out of a desire to attain eternal rewards, it is a false morality. Thus, to believe in God (in the Christian sense) is to forego absolute morality. If I lack a belief in God but am still moral in my actions, my morality is much truer than a person who does good deeds to assuage and appease a superior being, in the hopes of receiving eternal rewards. Christian morality is rooted in falsity, thus the arguments for faith in God as a means of acheiving and realizing moral standards or to encourage a sense of justice in the world are also false. Well, it seems I have indulged in my typical anti-Christian libertarianism- I had no idea the two were even related, but I'm glad [url=http://reducto.tblog.com]reducto[/url] has shown me the light.   posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 03.21.04 (7:40 pm) Even if we did need God to create real morality or to dish out punishments, that wouldn't mean that there was a God; it would only mean that there should be. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.21.04 (7:48 pm) It seems to me that much of what you have said here applies to religion in a much broader sense than just christianity. If God is a human creation, then certainly this applies to more than just the christian vision of "the creator." Very interesting and thought provoking blog. Keep it up! posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.22.04 (12:26 pm) Another question is that if God is the basis for morality in the world, then where did God's notions of morality come from? If moral standards are there, not simply because of a decree by God, but because they are inherently right, then a decree by God is not necessary for one to recognize those principals. Indeed many principles of morality are recognized by all the religions you have mentioned. Prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, and other ways of mistreating people do not require Christianity. While some religions have specific commandments that are to be observed by their adherents, but are not required to be observed by adherents of other religions, there's still a strong basis to say that those moral principles that are practiced across all religions serve all of us. The extent that they help you be faithful to God as your religion requires is a plus for your personal views, but that does not negate the value of these principles independently of their utility in a religious sense. If, on the other hand, you believe that these moral rules exist solely because God said so, and there are no other reasons related to how they allow mankind to live together in harmony, then it would mean that God's actions are arbitrary. It would also mean that one set of rules has no more of an inherent basis than any other set of rules that God could have given to mankind. That would be true, of course, unless there was something bigger than God that required God to give those rules. So for anybody who accepts God, it makes sense to accept that these rules were given by God to benefit mankind and one need not believe in God at all to recognize that. Anybody else already has a basis for accepting a moral standard. A key difference between Christianity and some other religions is that many Christians believe that their idea of morality must extend beyond those tenets that are universal and must include those that are specific to Christianity, even when applied to non-Christians. If that's the case, it's not clear why God did not command others to follow the same set of rules, and in some cases, commanded something different. It makes far more sense to accept a shared understanding of morality that is independent of God to be applied to society as a whole, and for practitioners of specific religions to obey any other religious laws as required by their religion as they see fit to serve God. If living a life according to God's moral code is a necessity for an afterlife, then God is bringing justice without our help. While we still have an obligation to protect society through laws, it makes little sense to support such concepts as a death penalty when God will be able to handle the punishment in due time. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.22.04 (4:07 pm) interesting Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins