Logical Outworking of Morals

[rodyshusband]

One of the primary criticisms of Christianity is hypocracy. If a Christian is not living a moral lifestyle, this would indeed be hypocritical. Therefore, if an atheist/agnostic were living a moral lifestyle, that, too, would qualify as hypocritcal.
Since morals are the logical outworking of Christianity we can conclude that no morals are the logical outworking of atheism.
Any thoughts or opinions?
Thanks.

[Cross.eyed]

One of the primary criticisms of Christianity is hypocracy. If a Christian is not living a moral lifestyle, this would indeed be hypocritical. Therefore, if an atheist/agnostic were living a moral lifestyle, that, too, would qualify as hypocritcal.

The argument seems to hold up in the case of atheism as moral value cannot be the product of natural processes.

Since morals are the logical outworking of Christianity we can conclude that no morals are the logical outworking of atheism.

I am quite certain that relativism is as close as one could get to any kind of morality without divine revelation.

Any thoughts or opinions?
Thanks.

Most Christians (I hope) would hold more to something like this:

"We live in a time when many claim everything is relative, yet ironically, they believe they have rights.
But if morality is just the product of evolution, culture, or personal choice, then rights and moral responsibilty do not truly exist. But if they do,this assumes humans have value in and of themselves as persons, no matter what their culture or science textbooks say. But what, then, is the basis for this value? Could this intrinsic value just emerge from impersonal, mindless, valueless processes over time? "

The Apologetics Study Bible-Holman Bible publishers.

[cslewislover]

The hypocracy I hear about is to me an often false view, and that is how we love as Christians. Christian critics like to think we don't "love" the way God wants us to. I personally see that a lot of Christians seem unthoughtful and selfish, but I'm not sure those would fall under what you are referring to as a moral or immoral lifestyle. What is the definition of "morals" here? I don't see many Christians living an obviously immoral lifestyle.

I think God gave humans morals and they are not a Christian commodity. However, I think as Christians we can tap into God's strength in order to live a moral life as God intended. There are non-Christians who live more moral lives, seemingly, than some Christians. Is it illogical? It may seem like it, but not if you believe that God gave everyone morals to begin with and individuals have different motivations and strengths for following them.

[Cross.eyed]

There are non-Christians who live more moral lives, seemingly, than some Christians. Is it illogical? It may seem like it, but not if you believe that God gave everyone morals to begin with and individuals have different motivations and strengths for following them. [/color]

Good point, it is logical. I have known such atheists also and it makes sense that God would "implant" a moral code into everyone.

What is not logical is that an atheistic worldview doesn't include God and so believe we come by personal morality from impersonal events.
They are not preaching what they really do believe.
That is hypocracy.

[B. W.]

There is a lesson to be learned from Solomon. God granted him the gift of great wisdom and knowledge. From these, he ruled his Kingdom and established morality based as God as the sourse.

1 Kings 10:24, "And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. "

Form this wisdom he ruled and displayed a moral code based on this wisdom. That is how he ruled. Yet later, he was proven not as wise as he though he was.

1 Kings 11:1-6, "Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. 4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done."

Lesson

Solomon left behind the Love for God that supplied moral wisdom to his heart and understanding and exchanged it for love as defined by the ways of the world. Thus, his morals were lowered by use of wisdom which justified not following wholly the Lord by use of the term 'love' as Solomon clung to his foreign wives in love.

How could love be morally wrong? How could such love reject anyone's belief? How could love not be so tolerant? Solomon understood the concept of God's grace and love but chose to manipulate it. Thus foreign gods entered and brought Solomon's kingdom to ruin.

Anyone see any correlations for today's modern world view?

Morality not based on God himself is not wise. To exchange love for God to the world's definition of love is not a wise course to take. People are more than capable of making their own moral standards but these morals are likened to shifting sand. There are no firm foundations to ground these on as they are subject to the justifications of change.

Everyone can agree that murder — premeditated murder - is a moral wrong but however it becomes justified as a noble right when it comes to the matter of abortion.

Without God, there is no moral cement in which to base morality on. It shifts and changes as it manipulates the concept of love and grace to suit personal selfish whims. Jesus died on the cross exposing this and was raised from the dead so we can receive full forgiveness for messing with the Holy standards of God.
-
-
-

[Harry12345]

Everyone, Christian, Atheist, Jew, Gentile, Black, White, Male, Female lives an immoral lifestyle without even knowing it. Every second of our lives we fall short of God and His standard. WWAAED is my (non-catchy) saying - What Would Adam and Eve Do? If Adam and Eve are the perfect standard of morality, every time we do things that Adam and Eve wouldn't do (which is all of the time) we are falling short of this moral standard.

Atheists claim Christians are hypocrites, but the fact is Christians admit they are FAR from perfect. The difference is we strive to be like Jesus. Yes we fall short of it... more times than we can tell. But we never say we get it right all the time. In fact, all we CAN do is strive. We can never be like Jesus. So in that sense, I guess Christians are hypocritical.

[cslewislover]

I really like your answer, Harry, but I think you're talking about perfection, not just morals. Yes, you even use the word perfect in the second paragraph. But I still really like your answer.

[Harry12345]

I really like your answer, Harry, but I think you're talking about perfection, not just morals. Yes, you even use the word perfect in the second paragraph. But I still really like your answer.

Thank you!

Yes I talk about perfection, but God's moral standard demands perfection. To God, morality and perfection are one and the same. Anything otherwise is, thusly, immoral.

[B. W.]

I really like your answer, Harry, but I think you're talking about perfection, not just morals. Yes, you even use the word perfect in the second paragraph. But I still really like your answer.

Thank you!

Yes I talk about perfection, but God's moral standard demands perfection. To God, morality and perfection are one and the same. Anything otherwise is, thusly, immoral.

For God so loved the world that He sent his Son....

Aren't you glad!!!
-
-
-

[Harry12345]

I really like your answer, Harry, but I think you're talking about perfection, not just morals. Yes, you even use the word perfect in the second paragraph. But I still really like your answer.

Thank you!

Yes I talk about perfection, but God's moral standard demands perfection. To God, morality and perfection are one and the same. Anything otherwise is, thusly, immoral.

For God so loved the world that He sent his Son....

Aren't you glad!!!
-
-
-

Indeed! He was perfect, so we don't have to be!

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I'm sorry that we don't have an atheist posting on this thread. I know that there is a smart & non-bitter atheist around - peter - but for some reason, he is not here. So, there is no one to speak for «them» and we end up reinforcing our ideas about atheists.

There is a problem at the very beginning of this thread:

if an atheist/agnostic were living a moral lifestyle, that, too, would qualify as hypocritical.

Not really; because as others have pointed out, God created us with innate morality. Even atheists have it but they do not recognize this innate morality as being God-given; they see it - I think - as being culturally driven, culturally agreed upon, therefore plastic and subject to change according to circumstances. The dichotomy between God-given innate morality and culturally-driven morality is why atheists invariably paint themselves into a corner when discussing the morals of, say, Nazi Germany: atheists have godly innate morality but must defend the idea that morality is by culturaI consensus. So, if it is culturally agreed upon that killing Jews is good, then it is good, very good and excellent to do so.

Bring an atheist to the logical conclusion of his thinking (murder can be good if culturally agreed upon) and watch his face as the incongruity of his statement dawns upon him. The discomfort you witness is a result of trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Which brings me to my original point, again:

Therefore, if an atheist/agnostic were living a moral lifestyle, that, too, would qualify as hypocritcal.

No, it would not be hypocritical. It would be a witness of the innate morality God has given to each of us.

FL

[cslewislover]

Yes, great response, FL. That's what I thought we were talking about, practical morals in everyday living, not our perfection to come. I think many others would say our morals are just chemical and genetic, a result of evolution, and therefore are intrinsic (not cultural). But they would still have no basis for really knowing right from wrong, since they'd have to figure that out scientifically somehow. And in the end, if it's just genetic, what does it matter if one acts immorally anyway? Well, I'm starting to ramble now; not enough coffee yet.

[rodyshusband]

I started this post in response to a recent interview with atheist/author Christopher Hitchens. When asked why he seemed to appear rude when debating and in general, he answered that " being nice and polite" is a Judeo-Christian value and he does not believe in Judeo-Christian values, implying that he was trying not to be a hypocrite. Despite this, Hitchens admitted that he likes doing "nice" things (like donating blood) in hopes that, if needed, someone would do it for him. I would have asked him where he heard of this idea.
Obviously, Hitchens worldview is contradictory.
Responses here have been great.
I, too, would like to hear from our atheist/agnostic friends....

[cslewislover]

In anthropology this would just be considered a type of reciprocal behaviour, I believe (he may have been thinking that). Anthropology (as well as other fields) recognizes altruisic behavior as part of normal human life too. These are moralistic behaviors that they acknowledge and study, but they don't have answers as to where they come from. I'm sure that many of the scientiests studying them simply think they're instinctual, since these behaviors occur in all cultures.

[SaintConfused]

rodyshusband,

If a Christian is not living a moral lifestyle, this would indeed be hypocritical.

Not quiet, as the 'moral lifestyle' itself needs to be observed as a goal and/or daily routine of morality. By this method, a Christian would think-before-acting against a non-Christian individual. Ex: A Christian family uses and enforces a 'moral lifestyle' on itself (via the parents of course) over a few things Paul says and refuses to hear something Jesus had said instead (Jesus said the law is forever, until the heavens and Earth pass away, Paul said the law ended with Jesus' sacrifice, Paul is the hypocrite against Jesus, God, and the law). Too a certain point, they are no longer 'Christian' and the 'moral lifestyle' requires some obvious questioning. It's not so much a hypocrisy, seeing as how Jesus takes on the role of predestining our existence. Rather, just another self-defeating/contradicting chain of events. What separates the hypocrisy from the obvious contradiction, is that this family is fully aware of their opposition (hypocritical nature) and they continue to fight over something else (the 'NT' verse) yet have stopped reading the bible altogether and this is contradicting a moderate Christian 'moral lifestyle'. This is the family that memorized some words only to frighten people (immoral), whereas the surrounding neighbors want to comfort and assist to the best of their capabilities (moral). They are not honest too themselves, with obsession over something Paul had stated years ago. It is a contradiction of 'Christianity' in itself, and the hypocrisy can be directed at either party (this one family, or their neighbors) still. When this family meets a hardcore Atheist, and he refuses to convert over something Paul or Jesus says (biblical support not), they have a chance to reflect on their 'moral lifestyle' and have the chance to make a complete change by being aware of their neighbors and even interacting with them to correct themselves. The contradictions, immorality, and hypocrisy ends where unity begins for the 'moral lifestyle' to be focused on the general neighborhood as a whole (cul-de-sac anyone?) and not just that one family, one house, one bible, and a KKK suspicion growing because of the husband doesn't agree fully with Paul, yet still insist on following his cherry-picked favorite verses (pro-slavery, anti-multiracial relationships and children, Anti-Semitic ignorance, etc.) He's just the extremist and head of the household. Verse references: Rom.8:29-30, Rom.9:11-22, Eph.1:4-5, 2 Tim.1:9, Matt 8:12, 1 Corinth 11:3. The hypocrisy lies in denying common 'moral lifestyle', not in the following of someone Else's will (Paul, by extension of being a representative of Jesus even though they don't agree on several points). To conclude, it's: 'yes, but not absolutely 100%'. The thinking-before-acting comes into play without hypocrisy from the Christian family, and their 'moral lifestyle' would be accepted by fellow Christians, Agnostics, and Atheists alike. The Atheist who refuses to convert is not a hypocrite, unless he turned around and desired to convert the Christian family too Atheism, which would be absurd considering Atheism isn't religious.

If an atheist/agnostic were living a moral lifestyle, that, too, would qualify as hypocritical.

How is that supposed to work? One person fails at a 'moral lifestyle' therefore so does the other?
The atheist or agnostic is not being a hypocrite because he or she follows a 'moral lifestyle', just because a Christian is not.
A Christian sent too prison, does not make the non-Christian's 'moral lifestyle' a threat or hypocritical in any way.
The non-Christian too would only become a hypocrite after himself facing the same consequence for his actions (imprisonment),
not because he isn't a follower of Jesus or 'The Church'.
It is hypocritical, by that 'logic' attempt to declare a well-mannered Atheist is hypocritical for unknowingly following the advice of Jesus
whereas the Christian is completely 'moral' and a hypocrite for not reading yet still advertising the bible with things that cannot be supported
by either testament (such as, 'free will').
An Agnostic is not a hypocrite for living a 'moral lifestyle', just because a Christian fails to do the same.
It would only qualify as hypocritical if the Atheist or Agnostic abandoned their 'moral lifestyle', not because they continue with it.
That's like saying, even though I don't think I'm 'moral' (honestly), yet I set an acceptable example for
a 'moral lifestyle' I'm automatically a hypocrite because you fail to accept or follow my example? NO.
It would be the other way around, if I was advising you to follow my 'moral lifestyle' (I'm not, and
don't recommend it) yet I didn't practice what I preached about my 'moral lifestyle', that would be hypocritical.
The Atheist or Agnostic has no bearing on hypocrisy, just because a Christian is being
hypocritical against them. Unless of course, they follow that hypocritical pattern of the Christian.
Which is A) unlikely, B) Only used for satirical 'entertainment'.~SC