(Note: this question is not a repetition of apparently similar " Without belief in eternal reward or punishment, how is it possible to be moral? ". This referred to people" do well "for fear of punishment or desire to reward, this one is about the common belief on the part of believers (and, incredibly, some non-believers, too) that the ethical rules of society, our morality, our "standard" of right and wrong come God / religion / the Bible.)
This may be a surprise for you, but if you're a good person, caring, unselfish in the right direction and that cares about others, do not remove it from religion. Quite the contrary.
(Very common in Catholic countries of Europe such as Portugal) your religion is simply "believe that God is like a father who loves us and wants us to be good to each other," then, on the one hand you are very healthier and more ethical than a huge number of believers, on the other hand invented this religion. You created it. Or, alternatively, the priest or pastor who instructed you about God and religion invented himself.
This is because "just be good to each other" is virtually a philosophy that is not supported in the Christian Bible. Is not that the Christian god is portrayed as being, or whatever - especially but not only in the Old Testament. Not at all.
According to the Bible - and, again, if ignorant, you are inventing your own religion - God really think women are inferior to men. He considers slavery acceptable. He thinks that anyone who disobeys any of its many arbitrary rules should be immediately killed by other believers. He thinks homosexuals, bankers, disobedient children and people who eat shellfish should be sentenced to death. And he did not have any problems with regard to genocide - killing entire civilizations, including women and children.
Most Christians, of course, never have their attention directed (by priests, pastors, etc..) To the above. Most of what they are confronted with this are generally mentally healthy enough and moral enough to repudiate those teachings (again, thus creating your own religion "soft version"). And those who are not become fundamentalists, preachers and agents of intolerance, hatred and suffering, for whom anything that is less than a brutally repressive theocracy is not acceptable.
What I mean by this is that if you are a Christian moral, kind, and who cares about others, you are so in spite of your religion, not because of it. You have to ignore not only almost all of your holy book, otherwise probably would be stuck (by, for example, your son stoned to death for him to arrive late for a party). And then you have to reject it in your church that fervently believed throughout most of its existence (and somehow still believe, but already has some shame to admit it): gays are an abomination, women are inferior and should follow husbands, and so on.
How does your morality can come from religion, if you have to ignore almost all the teachings of this religion as not to be a monster?
(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not to other matters as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)
Possibly related posts:
- FAQ: "You criticize the morality of the God of the Bible, but I did not I review this god! I believe God is good! "
- Christianity without the Bible
- FAQ: "Without belief in eternal reward or punishment, how is it possible to be moral?"
- FAQ: "You people are atheists because they want to do what you give in ghana, without rules and without accountability to anyone!"
- FAQ: "Atheism is just another religion!"
Labels: Bible , God , Atheism FAQ , Morality , Religion
Giving continuation to my comment on the previous post, also in "Practical Ethics", Peter Singer talks about basically a moral decision criterion. And then he argues about the main types of ethical criteria and concluded that the best system is the utilitarianism of preferences.
The utilitarianism of preferences is a branch of consequentialism, which says that an action is good or bad depending on the amount of good that causes, "The greatest good for the greatest number." Preference Utilitarianism says that the greatest asset in this case are the number of preferences and wishes fulfilled.
By the way add a short description of the book. From this ethical criterion, he argues for a lot of current issues or controversies, equality, affirmative action (positive discrimination), animal rights, abortion, euthanasia, the environment, civil disobedience ...
And it comes at the end, the question of which I speak in my previous comment, in the previous post, the "Why should I act morally?". Later on, he even comes to the question of the meaning of life ...
Now I'll stop talking about this book before I become boring, but I found it interesting that the next issue of the FAQ also be more or less covered by the book above.
If a Christian goes by "gays are an abomination, women are inferior and should obey their husbands, and so on." This, so this time no one can be called Christian.
At the time of our parents, grandparents, etc., might be found by people who were more or less Christians or even Christians, this happened because times were different (obviously) but because there was no alternative, ie the People may follow all the popes as said, this resulted to see everything as if people wanted, or had faith. But now, thinking well today people no longer bind religions and each one has freedom of expression and this may be something about the concepts of God, as if women have to obey their husbands by this time have not, indeed may even count as a crime, since the domestic violation exists, but only because today there is no freedom of expression, but if there is no breach domestic peace for some people, so it was all dead by now. Aspects possitivos this time, children are treated well ...
In ancient times, it's okay, but the children are no longer handled well and there were many wars that even today.
Where do I want to get, even if people want to be Christians will never succeed, because the world will never accept this or other people.
Sorry, Peter, but I think you "lose" a bit in the middle of your comment (by the way, I apologize for taking so long to respond), and have just not really understand where you want to reach.
With regard to your first paragraph, if you read the original post there you will see that I respond to that. If you are Christian, there are only two possibilities: either follow the Bible, or invent your own religion and call it "Christianity." The first hypothesis includes such things that today are largely considered (and well) immoral ("gays are an abomination, women are inferior and should obey their husbands, and so on"), and there to give back, the early Christians believed that, and this shows that either 1) had no morality "divine", or 2) God is really sexist and homophobic.
The second hypothesis (that decide to believe in X and Y and then call it "Christianity") is intellectually dishonest. It makes so much sense now as I decide that my cat is God and created the universe in last Thursday, and call "Christianity" to this my belief.
Cool, but Jesus changed mta thing in the New Testament, is simple, just read without jah initial conclusions condemning the scriptures.
Read with the neutral thought to qualke side without pulling.
Everyone believes what he wants. If I decide to believe q cow flies, I can just get it out of my mind.
Similarly atheists or Christians. Each one believes in a thing, and evidence has so much to one side to another qto.
The Old Testament has mta q do not have anything to do with the church (body of Christ, Christians), but with Israel (Jews).
In the Old Testament preached different things. Jesus came to liberate also Gentiles (non-Israelites), but what else have we h hj days using the old slave spiritual will to do and earn money by uninformed people not to q to look at Jesus and see nothing in the q world is more valuable name than to love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself (this includes all the good things you can have q).
Doctrine or religion does not take anyone to anything. Rules are followed Jesus for love, not porq if you sin you will die, so eh past.
Also the Old Testament can not be ruled out, it is part of the history and prophecies name than MTAs have already happened.
Q All of the Old Testament fits noq Jesus said is correct.
"And I will give you a new heart, and I put within you a new spirit of your flesh and I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
And I put within you my Spirit, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them.
And I will deliver you from all your filthiness, and call for the grain and multiply it, and lay no famine upon you.
Then shall ye remember your evil ways and your doings that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. "Ezekiel 36-26 ~
In this excerpt from the Old Testament talks about new heart, hj MTAs people go through this process (born again), however in the Old Testament does not speak q this was done out of love:
"Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD is known you; be ashamed and confounded you because of your ways, O house of Israel." Ezekiel 36-32
Jah in the New Testament, This is done out of love, Jesus came to free us from the sins that the price was before the death, died in the place of many and made many born of water and spirit and learn to do to others what was done for them by the King
Anyway, once (Israelis / Jews) ran atraz of good works to be saved (q not achieved anything and nobody will ever get, everyone has jah error)
After Jesus, we are (that includes the church (all who believe in Jesus, the Gentiles to the Jews.) First save for later atraz run of good deeds for the sake of his name. And especially love because He first loved us.
vlw the /
A comment unnecessarily long to expose the argument of "it was the Old Testament, but Jesus changed everything." On the one hand thank: the response to this argument is clearly something that is lacking in the Atheism FAQ , which will give a more detailed response. But for now, this argument is easily destroyed, citing Matthew 5:17-19:
Yes, Jesus himself contradicts his words in other parts of the Gospels, but what is said is said.