-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Is there reason to be moral to others...
- Thread starter JGG
- Start date
- Status
Overgeneralizations are not fact.
You've seen and heard some Christians say things and have taken it badly it appears. That doesn't mean that all Christians say the same things though.
Is that why you began this thread because of what Christians have said concerning atheists and morals? Just curious.
You've seen and heard some Christians say things and have taken it badly it appears. That doesn't mean that all Christians say the same things though.
Is that why you began this thread because of what Christians have said concerning atheists and morals? Just curious.
Upvote
0
Poor taxonomy on their part; "immoral" has a meaning, and that's not it. But many atheists fall prey to the same problem.
"Your morality is immoral."
No, it's not. It's different, and it might be screwed up according to my reasoning, but it's still a morality.
Well, most people don't actually have a consistently reasoned morality. Most fall back on the basic natural unreasoned hedonism that they rationalize to be something else. And don't even reason out their hedonism (a well-reasoned hedonist can be a quite good neighbor).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TheyCallMeDavid
Well-Known Member
Hello. It was myself who made the above quote in a Formal Debate I was having with someone. I maintain its accuracy and besides scientific studies that put professed Atheists at a lower level of morals and ethics...it is common sense that the atheist ideology of Moral Relativism is for the expressed purpose of One calling his own shots when it comes determining if he/she desires to engage in an immoral lifestyle. Atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason: http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality .This conclusion isn't just mine, but it is clearly stated in The Bible of people who are not reconciled to God (viz. Unbelievers) .
Perhaps some Christians don't agree with this reality, but, that is their prerogative ; I go according to what the Bible says and what the reality of our American Culture clearly demonstrates. I might add that there are a good many 'professed Christians' who are liberally minded today that they readily adopt the Cultural norm when it comes to popular lifestyles that are immoral.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That goes both ways. There are many right-wing Christians who adopt American cultural norms that are also immoral.
Too many citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven have "gone native" in America, not realizing that American cultural norms both left and right are not the culture of Heaven.
Upvote
0
TheyCallMeDavid
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more. And this is exactly what I was meaning by what I posted. Our American Churches resemble the worlds philosophies in so many many cases.
Upvote
0
A
Andrea411
Guest
For sure but the church throughout history when it has become politicized has gotten off track. Add money and power and often it is no longer 'the church' at least not as Christians perceive it.
I still never hear Christians gathering to put down atheists. We are obviously Christians bc we believe in Christ and follow. I want to share my faith with atheists bc it is a wonderful blessing. I don't want to force my beliefs on atheists or others.
There is no disrespect when we disagree. This OP seems to want to be victimized by Christians. I can only figure that fuels his atheism. I suggest he take it to the Lord, if no one answers maybe God doesn't want him. But we know otherwise.
When I was an atheist I had all kinds of preconceived notions about Christians. Of course I wasn't going to look at any good stuff. Geez, that might have meant I was wrong. We can't have that. I wasn't wrong about people as much as I was wrong about what it said about God. When we say, 'we may be the only bible some people ever read' its true. But thats bc they choose not to ask Christ or open a bible. Its nice when people see us and say, hey, they're great people. I want what they have. But some atheists are great people, or mormons or hindus, that isn't always truth. We deceive ourselves when we look for truth and filter what we won't accept. Instead we need to allow truth to take us where ever it goes.
Today if someone wants to know Christ there are many places in the states to find truth. Not so in many parts of the world. If the OP wanted truth, he has only to spend a few weeks reading or visiting some recommended churches. Unbelief is a choice too.
May he choose to open his ears and hear the word of the Lord and find the peace of God in his life, andrea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang (no religion just think about it)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-...s/1416542744/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1 (selling for .01 plus s&h)
but if he chooses atheism there are lots of books for that too. In the end, faith is a choice, as it should be. God didn't say, follow me bc your convinced. He wants His followers to follow bc they want Him.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
“I think its OBVIOUS to EVERYONE, that, there is a certain GROUP of people within the American populace that are the MAJOR Contributor to to the runaway moral degradation we see sociologically (The Heathen, the Atheist , the Liberally Immoral)”
There's your quote folks. I dare anyone to disagree with it.
There's your quote folks. I dare anyone to disagree with it.
Upvote
0
So you're pulling quotes. What exactly are you trying to prove?
This forum is Exploring Christianity. Are you really exploring Christianity? Or are you out to get a few members, the ones you're quoting?
I really think you need to get back to your own topic if you want to explore Christianity instead of trying to goad the Christians. We are all sinners in need of a Savior.
Upvote
0
A
Andrea411
Guest
Ravi Zacharias is a leading Christian apologist, this is his thoughts on the New Atheism. I have never seen him be disrespectful to atheists. I have seen atheist disrespect him.
THE NEW ATHEISM AND MORALITY
Though the chorus of voices decrying belief in God has been humming in the ideological background for centuries, it seems to have reached a crescendo with the emergence of a movement that has been dubbed the new atheism. The trademark of this new brand of atheism is its vitriolic attack on religion. To its advocates, religious beliefs are not only false; they are also dangerous and must be expunged from all corners of society. The pundits of the new atheism are not content to nail discussion theses on the door of religion; they are also busy delivering eviction notices to the allegedly atavistic elements of an otherwise seamlessly progressive atheistic evolution of Homo sapiens.Given the rhetoric, one might be forgiven for thinking that some new discoveries have rendered belief in God untenable. Curiously, this drama is unfolding in the same era in which perhaps the world’s leading defender of atheism, Antony Flew, has declared that recent scientific discoveries point to the fact that this world cannot be understood apart from the work of God as its Creator. This is no small matter, for Flew has been preaching atheism for as long as Billy Graham has been preaching the Gospel. Unlike Flew and others, the new atheists seem to forget that the success of their mission hinges solely on the strength and veracity of the reasons they give for repudiating religion. Venom and ridicule may carry the day in an age of sensationalistic sound bites, but false beliefs will eventually bounce off the hard, cold, unyielding wall of reality.A good example of a claim against religion that does not sit well with the facts of reality is issued in the form of a challenge to the believer to “name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.” (1) We are expected to agree that no such action or statement exists and then conclude that morality does not depend on God.The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The fact that a non-believer can utter moral statements and even act morally does not logically lead to the conclusion that morality does not depend on God, much less that God does not exist. This challenge misunderstands the believer’s position on the relationship between morality and God.The believer’s claim is that the world owes its existence to a moral God. All human beings are moral agents created in God’s image and are expected to recognize right from wrong because they all reflect God’s moral character. The fact that human beings are the kinds of creatures that can recognize the moral imperatives that are part of the very fabric of the universe argues strongly against naturalism.Unlike the laws of nature, which even inanimate objects obey, moral imperatives appeal to our will and invite us to make real decisions on real moral issues. The only other parallel experience we have of dos and don’ts comes from our minds. Thus when the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings happen to favor either because of their genetic makeup or conventional accords. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution.Had human evolution taken a different course, these acts might well have been the valued elements of our moral code. Even Nazi morality would be right had the Nazis succeeded in their quest for world dominance. Unless the world contains behavioral guidelines that transcend human decisions and genetic determinism, there is no reason why anyone should object to such conclusions.Though some religious people do not live up to the moral principles they espouse, it is not true that genuine religious devotion makes no difference to one’s moral commitments. It is missionaries, and not atheists, who regularly give up their own comforts and accept unbelievable amounts of pain and suffering to better the lives of societal outcasts, not just through preaching but also through education, technology, and humanitarian relief. Our failure to live up to what we know to be right provides empirical evidence for the need for God’s intervention in our lives.Those who insist that objective morality makes no difference to human autonomy still expect morality to guide the behavior of others. That our society is saturated with transcendent moral sentiments accounts for the popularity of some television programs that arrest our attention night after night. Perhaps ninety percent of the shows depend exclusively on our ability to apply objective moral standards to the actions of the characters. Should the Judeo-Christian moral bank close its doors to our cultural psyche, the bankruptcy of human-centered morality would eventually send our spiritual tentacles scouring for an alternative transcendent anchor.Thus were the new atheists to succeed in their quest, the result would not be the elimination of religion but the entrenchment of a different religion. As Ravi Zacharias has warned in his new book The End of Reason, eventually, the real choice for the West will not be between Christianity and atheism but between Christianity and another religion.Beware of ethical naturalists bearing moral gifts.1) Christopher Hitchens, “An Atheist Responds,” The Washington Times (Saturday, July 14, 2007).J.M. Njoroge is associate apologist at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.
The New Atheism and Morality | RZIM
THE NEW ATHEISM AND MORALITY
Though the chorus of voices decrying belief in God has been humming in the ideological background for centuries, it seems to have reached a crescendo with the emergence of a movement that has been dubbed the new atheism. The trademark of this new brand of atheism is its vitriolic attack on religion. To its advocates, religious beliefs are not only false; they are also dangerous and must be expunged from all corners of society. The pundits of the new atheism are not content to nail discussion theses on the door of religion; they are also busy delivering eviction notices to the allegedly atavistic elements of an otherwise seamlessly progressive atheistic evolution of Homo sapiens.Given the rhetoric, one might be forgiven for thinking that some new discoveries have rendered belief in God untenable. Curiously, this drama is unfolding in the same era in which perhaps the world’s leading defender of atheism, Antony Flew, has declared that recent scientific discoveries point to the fact that this world cannot be understood apart from the work of God as its Creator. This is no small matter, for Flew has been preaching atheism for as long as Billy Graham has been preaching the Gospel. Unlike Flew and others, the new atheists seem to forget that the success of their mission hinges solely on the strength and veracity of the reasons they give for repudiating religion. Venom and ridicule may carry the day in an age of sensationalistic sound bites, but false beliefs will eventually bounce off the hard, cold, unyielding wall of reality.A good example of a claim against religion that does not sit well with the facts of reality is issued in the form of a challenge to the believer to “name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.” (1) We are expected to agree that no such action or statement exists and then conclude that morality does not depend on God.The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The fact that a non-believer can utter moral statements and even act morally does not logically lead to the conclusion that morality does not depend on God, much less that God does not exist. This challenge misunderstands the believer’s position on the relationship between morality and God.The believer’s claim is that the world owes its existence to a moral God. All human beings are moral agents created in God’s image and are expected to recognize right from wrong because they all reflect God’s moral character. The fact that human beings are the kinds of creatures that can recognize the moral imperatives that are part of the very fabric of the universe argues strongly against naturalism.Unlike the laws of nature, which even inanimate objects obey, moral imperatives appeal to our will and invite us to make real decisions on real moral issues. The only other parallel experience we have of dos and don’ts comes from our minds. Thus when the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings happen to favor either because of their genetic makeup or conventional accords. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution.Had human evolution taken a different course, these acts might well have been the valued elements of our moral code. Even Nazi morality would be right had the Nazis succeeded in their quest for world dominance. Unless the world contains behavioral guidelines that transcend human decisions and genetic determinism, there is no reason why anyone should object to such conclusions.Though some religious people do not live up to the moral principles they espouse, it is not true that genuine religious devotion makes no difference to one’s moral commitments. It is missionaries, and not atheists, who regularly give up their own comforts and accept unbelievable amounts of pain and suffering to better the lives of societal outcasts, not just through preaching but also through education, technology, and humanitarian relief. Our failure to live up to what we know to be right provides empirical evidence for the need for God’s intervention in our lives.Those who insist that objective morality makes no difference to human autonomy still expect morality to guide the behavior of others. That our society is saturated with transcendent moral sentiments accounts for the popularity of some television programs that arrest our attention night after night. Perhaps ninety percent of the shows depend exclusively on our ability to apply objective moral standards to the actions of the characters. Should the Judeo-Christian moral bank close its doors to our cultural psyche, the bankruptcy of human-centered morality would eventually send our spiritual tentacles scouring for an alternative transcendent anchor.Thus were the new atheists to succeed in their quest, the result would not be the elimination of religion but the entrenchment of a different religion. As Ravi Zacharias has warned in his new book The End of Reason, eventually, the real choice for the West will not be between Christianity and atheism but between Christianity and another religion.Beware of ethical naturalists bearing moral gifts.1) Christopher Hitchens, “An Atheist Responds,” The Washington Times (Saturday, July 14, 2007).J.M. Njoroge is associate apologist at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.
The New Atheism and Morality | RZIM
Upvote
0
A
Andrea411
Guest
There are atheists that want Christians to explore their faith in order to make more atheists and then there are people who genuinely want to explore Christianity. The New Atheists are evangelizers.
I personally, having been a former atheist, really cannot fathom the heart of an individual who would want to come to a believer offering them 'nothingness' as an alternative to faith. To me these are the darkest of dark, individuals, so full of themselves that they want to destroy whatever light others have in order to protect their own 'religion' atheism.
Simply bc atheism has proven itself to be such a poor replacement for Christianity and cost so many so much, also whether atheists like it or not. A void will be filled and there is nothing as kind or respectful of their beliefs, as Christianity, in the wings.... there are radicals waiting to fill the gap. Look at Russia, the Middle east and Europe... as Christianity wains the void is devastating. Muslim radicals will fulfill all the atheist's nightmares about religion.
I personally, having been a former atheist, really cannot fathom the heart of an individual who would want to come to a believer offering them 'nothingness' as an alternative to faith. To me these are the darkest of dark, individuals, so full of themselves that they want to destroy whatever light others have in order to protect their own 'religion' atheism.
Simply bc atheism has proven itself to be such a poor replacement for Christianity and cost so many so much, also whether atheists like it or not. A void will be filled and there is nothing as kind or respectful of their beliefs, as Christianity, in the wings.... there are radicals waiting to fill the gap. Look at Russia, the Middle east and Europe... as Christianity wains the void is devastating. Muslim radicals will fulfill all the atheist's nightmares about religion.
Upvote
0
No, not at this time. I want to see why others disagree, if they disagree before I state anything.
Upvote
0
Are we? Or are we exploring Christians? And their faults?
We're exploring the beliefs of Christians. Christianity.
Upvote
0
TheyCallMeDavid
Well-Known Member
Regarding your highlighted black words ; not only Christians are called to abide by the Moral Law but ALL OF US are to do so. Regardless of how One believes this Moral Law came about, it is still encumbant upon all of humanity NOT to suppress it and instead to embrace it . But obviously, we all do break it even if we are zealous to keep it ... such is sin in the Human. But, there is a big difference between wishing we didn't break Gods Moral Law coupled with honoring it, versus, willfully suppressing it so we can get/act/talk anyway we deem fit.
Even for those who feel it necessary to pretend a personal intelligent Creator doesn't exist , they still have the Moral oughtness within them and realize how important it is (for themselves and others) to live according to it....for....they see the fallout in their personal lives when they don't abide by it. Youd think Humans would learn from this occurring, but, such is the lure and addiction behind making SELF ones own authority / making Oneself their 'god' when it comes to lifestyle choices. Of course the relentless advertising by a Mass Media to get all the gusto you can out of life without any careful analysis to the ramifications ... is what fuels an out of control morally-decadent American Culture. Not even millions of people dying prematurely is enough to thwart entering into poor lifestyle choices which are inherently dangerous and fatal.
Upvote
0
It doesn't seem like you're exploring the beliefs of Christians in as much as you're exploring the faults of Christians and how they've made you feel personally with some quotes. We're all sinners in need of a Savior. That part is proven.
What else do you want to know about reasons for being moral to others? I think the members here have done an excellent job at giving you biblical reasons.
Upvote
0
Quotes as well as actions. Would it be different if the quote came from the Bible? Christian beliefs are Christian beliefs. Do any of you consider yourselves sinners because you hate atheists? I doubt it.
"The Bible says so" still means "God says so". You're saying there is no reason for a non-Christian to be moral. That is the Christian position.
Upvote
0
Have I at any point challenged the notion of God? Have I said anything that suggests I'm trying to convert you to atheism ? I really don't think so.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
