Who is the most moral upstanding person?

and many do not.

and many non believers act out of fear of being caught, being disapproved of etc.

as do many chrisians, for whom this world is usually more significant than the next!

 

Alright. Lets count. These are all the posts made that answered the question before you started ranting. I dont know which are atheists, exactly, but they are all here.

Lets do a running tally of those that don't answer the specific question, or call athiests generally more moral than theists:

0/1

0/2

0/3

0/4

0/5

Thats all of them. A 0% success rate for your hypothesis.

At which point you replied:

Yes, clearly its the atheists that are being unreasonable.

Thats it, you are done.

 

I realize I can't speak for "all" atheist or "all" Christians. How about just comparing the two specific examples I used.

 

What makes you believe that there is a 'hell' and why do you believe 'hell' to be such a terrifying place or condition?

"They" I presume is still making reference to Christians or Theists. OK... so what will happen when a non-Theist or non-Christian rapes a young child? As a non-Theist or non-Christian, that person would have no fear of 'hell' but that person did accomplish what he/she desired to do. Is that the kind of behavior that you would prefer.... everyone doing whatever makes them feel good?

 

Why don't you stick to the topic at hand and stop throwing out tangents.

 

His hypothetical question doesn't make sense. I was trying to educate the poster a little...so that the question would make sense.

Christians.....knows....they will not go to hell. Because they are Christian.

So with that in mind.....its actually the Christian who shows the ultimate strength in turning away from sin.

 

thats not actually true.

it might be true with your version of christianity, but it is certainly not universally believed by all christians.

 

No version of Christianity states that Christians don't sin. No version of Christianity states that after a Christian sins they go to hell.

So the question the op put together was nonsensical.

 

sorry.

you are obviouly not familiar with christianity.

being brought up a catholic, it was pretty much drummed into me that I could go to hell if I died while I had a mortal sin on my soul.

thats why it was important to go to confession.

 

I do get your point and you are correct. The poster's question does align with the Catholic's viewpoint.

 

OK.

I guess that is one major difference.

If I was a believer, it wouldn't seem right to me that faith alone would guarantee entrance to paradise.

I believe that you have to earn your rewards, and the doctrine of sola fide kind of leaves you open to being a psychopathic killer but still get a free pass to eternal life, while virtual saints don't - simply because they had the wromg upbringing, or don't subscribe to the protestant faith for whatever reason.

 

We believe in a Christian "state of mind". Meaning....you aren't a Christian unless you have taken Jesus as your personal Savior and you are "reborn" into a new person motivated to build your relationship with God. If you don't have that....then you aren't a Christian. In that scenerio....pleasing God is the focus. Not fearing hell.

A person who breaks God's laws because they think they can....isn't a Christian. And will get a nasty surprise in the end. But really....I don't see this as an issue. A person either have taken Jesus as their Savior and want to please God or they don't. Catholic or Baptist.

 

I can't imagine the christians in Luther's time talking like this.

phrases such as "personal saviour" would have been considered bizarre back then.

 

That's also not true. Every year we have evangelists come to our campus telling us about how they no longer sin. It normally ends up dominating the discussion. There are some Christians out there (not many) that treat the whole "go forth and sin no more" and "be perfect as your Father is perfect" stuff literally. Personally, I think they are exaggerating about their success rate. Either that or they really think that the young women in the audience have eyes in their breasts.

 

I have to admit being fascinated with the fact that evangelists virtually all used to be much more immoral than I ever would have dreamed of being, they all took drugs and used to hit the bottle heavily (something I've never really been into) , and then when they found Jaysus, they suddenly became better people than me.

what is with that?

why were they all such amoral bastards befor ethey found jaysus, and then became holier than thou after they found him?

why couldn't they just have been boringly normal?

 

THey know what God told them, well the sacred book that they are following.

Most atheists will use common sense.

 

I am sticking to the topic. The topic is requesting a personalized opinion of 'who is the most moral upstanding person?' and I am merely requesting a rationale for the opinion that someone has expressed. Strictly relating to the topic.

 

Your "if" statement is being recognized as a hypothetical scenario which is based upon a private hypothetical personal perception.

That same "if" statement would also disclose a secondary hypothetical scenario, one in which it has been indicated that you (as the hypothetical believer) does not in fact rely upon 'faith alone' as a guaranty to an entrance into paradise. Of course, as anyone can see from your statement, that hypothetical scenario is not worth a hoot, because of the inferred hypothetical scenario in which you (as the hypothetical person) are truly not a believer. If you were truly a believer, then your faith would be sufficient. All of this now rests upon your intent on the use of the expression "faith alone" and the word "believer". If neither of those terms are relating to 'Faith alone in Jesus' and 'believer' being one who trusts in the Lord Jesus, then you could conceivably be right. Example: Faith in your ISP to deliver your printed material as you have typed it would certainly not guaranty you an entrance to 'paradise' (unless you are intending to force 'paradise' to simply mean earthly pleasure.), and you are a 'believer' in the notion that your messages would not get scrambled in transit.

As for myself, NOT speaking as a hypothetical scenario, do find 'faith alone' to be a guaranty as an entrance to paradise, as long as that faith is based on the teachings of Jesus.

 

The topic is who is the most moral of the "two examples" I provided. I know there are many other examples I could've used, but I didn't.

 

I'm just going to revisit this, in a previous post you said:

do you see a bit of a problem with these two statements?

according to you, IF a person breaks Gods law he isn't a christian, anyway - so therefore if he is a christian its a given that he won't do the wrong thing ... if he does ... then he's not really a christian in the first place.

which then means that the atheist is more moral, because he really does have a choice, and decides not to do the wrong thing anyway.

 

The framing of your question is loaded and there should be a third choice (3. They are the same.)

First, let's focus on statements 1 and 2 as all men objectify women (with all due respect to females) so statements 3 and 4 are irrelevant. Your intention is to elicit the response that the atheist is more moral because he/she chooses to do/not do an act because he/she believes that it is wrong as opposed to a fear of some afterlife wrath. In reality, the atheist believes in government or some other institution that would send him/her to jail or kick his or her ass. Thus, a statement "because it is wrong" equals "I don't want to go to hell in the afterlife".

 

No. I said that a Christian is motivated to please God. Not driven by fear of hell.

But a Church is a building full of sinners.....because we are not perfect as God is. We sin constantly. But when we do...it comes with shame.

I think an Atheist more prone to do what feels natural. What feels natural feels right to an Atheist. If an Atheist could steal without consequences....I think an Atheist is more apt to justify stealing.

 

In the extreme example you gave, the atheist has the better motives and is therefore the more moral person.

But there is a spiritual path that starts with fear of God and ends with love of God.

An atheist cannot travel on the path towards love of God, though he could have love for his fellow man. But it easier to have both.

 

try again


you said:

and

so it seems clear that according to you, the real christian would not break God's law and do the wrong thing

christians making statements like this are one of the main reasons why I have such a low opinion of so many christians on these forums.

it is arrogant and offensive in the extreme.

 

Ah, I see.

A person is not a Christian if they don't have a genuine desire to please God.

A person who assumes they aren't going to hell because they have "converted"...and thus does all sort of sins...because they "can"...is not a Christian.



I hope I have been clearer. Being a Christian is more then tradition and rules. It must be genuinely from the heart.