A Challenge for Believers in God.

Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

There isn't.

that being said im a believer of God, and slightly religious in that im pretty much open to anything at this point.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


I'm afraid, that believers soon will be claiming, that 'moral' only can be defined correctly on THEIR premises.

It would thus be 'immoral' to deny a blood-sacrifice craving 'god' his number of slaughtered animals, children and virgins (remember that the OT 'god' actually wanted blood sprinkled in his temple), just as it's 'immoral' to deny whatever insane sexual norms some contemporary christians try to impose on mankind.

It shall be fun to see the theist semantic dodgings once again, when they turn up.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


Come on, you can do better than this can't you? This isn't a challenge, it is an attempt to lure unsuspecting Christians into your Atheist gauntlet. It is also an attempt to get flags and stars by pandering to the Atheist crowd here on ATS. Again, I think that you will have to do better than this. I don't know anyone that has said that Christians are more kind or more apt to performing acts of kindness or compassion because they believe in God. There are good people and bad people in all groups and in all walks of life.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


teaching someone the ten commandments! rather than you bashing my Gods existence, why dont you prove your superiority by spreading the ultimate rules of humanity. you cant do it! do aliens exist? go bash the alien hunters for a while! then maybe some puppies that have offended you?

reply to post by TylerDurden2U

do aliens exist?

It's probable. The Drake Equation

Thanks for replying.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

Come on, you can do better than this can't you? This isn't a challenge, it is an attempt to lure unsuspecting Christians into your Atheist gauntlet. It is also an attempt to get flags and stars by pandering to the Atheist crowd here on ATS. Again, I think that you will have to do better than this. I don't know anyone that has said that Christians are more kind or more apt to performing acts of kindness or compassion because they believe in God. There are good people and bad people in all groups and in all walks of life.

edit on 6-7-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)

We actually DO have many christian preachers or missionaries on this forum, who in one way or another claim superior qualities for themselves or what they represent.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

I can't think of one.

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

Like killing a doctor because his medical practice is determined to be immoral? I've seen that a few times.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


The Rite of Exorcism.

I think the different might lay on philosophy area. Like when someone help another that he/she didnt know. Reason from believer might cuz god told him/her to help someone that needed.

And from not believer will depends on him/her self, and when the other reason isnt there, he/she might do it for him/her self just because they feel better after help another one that needed. It might him/her who help the other who really get a help, so he/she can go away with good feeling.

To prove the reason like this, he/she must not help that person and try to leave away. When he/she feel bad or sad, it is obvious that he/she help them self too in this case. Problem is, it can be subjective, therefore the value of helping other would depends on moral value, cultural , even political situation at a time in certain area.

Originally posted by TylerDurden2U
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

teaching someone the ten commandments! rather than you bashing my Gods existence, why dont you prove your superiority by spreading the ultimate rules of humanity. you cant do it! do aliens exist? go bash the alien hunters for a while! then maybe some puppies that have offended you?

What ultimate rules of humanity. Those you guys have decided on?

Originally posted by benedict9
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

The Rite of Exorcism.

Buddhists are actually better at that, though the name of the process issn't the same. Only the intent.

Originally posted by maung
I think the different might lay on philosophy area. Like when someone help another that he/she didnt know. Reason from believer might cuz god told him/her to help someone that needed.

And from not believer will depends on him/her self, and when the other reason isnt there, he/she might do it for him/her self just because they feel better after help another one that needed. It might him/her who help the other who really get a help, so he/she can go away with good feeling.

To prove the reason like this, he/she must not help that person and try to leave away. When he/she feel bad or sad, it is obvious that he/she help them self too in this case. Problem is, it can be subjective, therefore the value of helping other would depends on moral value, cultural , even political situation at a time in certain area.

Anyone wishing to do so, can 'pass on' some version of moral activity. You don't need to be a philosopher or a theist to do that.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


The short answer is that morality is not relative to faith.

The long answer would be to ask you to read Matthew 23 and to not be so focused on specific actions to prove someone is good. Jesus often criticized the Pharisees who did all the right things, but did not believe.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

There are none.

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

We're all immoral, Christians too. That's why Christ came to die for us. Sanctification is not a complete work of God at the point of conversion.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wrote:

["We're all immoral, Christians too."]

I can only repeat my many-times-suggestion: Speak for yourself.

You are not in a position of being able to speak on the behalf of all mankind, by assuming, that your personal faith-based 'absolutes' actually are universal 'truths'.

'Morality' is a subjective concept, so what's 'moral' for one person, can be 'immoral' for the next, and just stuffing it into a common category of 'non-perfection' doesn't give credence to ANY ideology.

If I understand correctly, christians make no claim to moral perfection. What they claim is forgiveness for their transgressions, and reconciliation to their God through a perfect proxy in the person of christ.

There's more to it than that, but I'll leave it for the christians to explain.

reply to post by bogomil

I can only repeat my many-times-suggestion..

That's called argumentum ad nauseam.

This poster isn't swayed, sorry.

Originally posted by Apokalypsis
If I understand correctly, christians make no claim to moral perfection. What they claim is forgiveness for their transgressions, and reconciliation to their God through a perfect proxy in the person of christ.

There's more to it than that, but I'll leave it for the christians to explain.

It is after all not so complicated. At least from a common social perspective. Missionaries (from all ideologies) will just have to learn the distnction between offering and pushing (and some of the pushing has been very brutal at times).

This seems to be an almost inpossible understanding for the more zealous types, who feel it is not only their 'duty', but also their right to mission un-opposed. They usually have some elitist sanctioning for invading peoples' lives and will feel sullenly 'persecuted' if these privileges are questioned.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

I can only repeat my many-times-suggestion..

That's called argumentum ad nauseam.

This poster isn't swayed, sorry.

I'm aware of that, so I suggest that you don't make universal claims on behalf of all mankind in the future. At least not if you don't want to see my answer repeated.