Ping!
I do not believe so personally.
My belief in Jesus and my belief that I will have to account for the contents of my life to Him is what keeps me on the straight and narrow.
Blacks are the most religious race, followed by Hispanics, then Whites and then Asians
Now what’s this about needing to Believe in God to be good?
NOPE!
Some of the most moral people I know are atheists.
No.
depends on what you mean by good
Men certainly can’t be good without God, Because men were conceived in iniquity and have the sin nature of their father Adam, the federal head of the human race, men can’t be good with God either. However, they can be forgiven. Men can cast their sin on the Son and stand in the courts of heaven and be found righteous, but it’s not because of any goodness or righteousness in them, it’s because His perfect righteousness has been imputed to their account.
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one”
I think a person can but few choose to be.
I personally think Democrats want a godless electorate because a godless electorate doesn’t care about right and wrong and will accept obvious lies without caring.
You can be good, but you won’t fear being bad.
Mar 10:19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"
Mar 10:20 And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth."
Mar 10:21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Mar 10:22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"
Mar 10:24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!
Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
Mar 10:26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?"
Mar 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."
“n a certain sense, it’s correct to say that one can be a good person without God. “
Not according to Romans.
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of a man’s education. You wont pass go without it.
Being good but denying God is an exercise in futility. We believers celebrate Christmas because a gift was sent by God in the Saviour Jesus because His sacrifice gets us to heaven and not our so-called goodness.
I’m sure they can be good, but they won’t be their best.
Of course you can be good without god, but you’re not going to be sin free and you’re not going to be saved.
But I believe there are certain circumstances where non-believers get the ultimate proof and ascend to heaven. I seem to recall a special latin name for it but can’t find it. Been a long time. I believe it’s reserved for those that have not heard the word of god and are righteous by their own conscious.
I think the question is phrased wrong — by saying ‘no’ you are opening up the possibility of humanity being worthless*, by saying ‘yes’ you are opening the way to a “I’m a good person”**.
The best way to approach the question is how Jesus did, He said:
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”
This puts the focus on the goodness of God***, not on the goodness (or lack thereof) of mankind.
* — Humanity cannot be worthless because the living God deemed us to be worth His own life; this is irrespective of the impact of the fall upon man being made in God’s image***.
** — Romans 3:23 says “[...] all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God;”
*** — God’s image cannot but be good; it is debatable whether or not the fall destroyed or merely deformed that image which mankind bears, given that the murder of a man is a capital crime in the Noahic covenant there seems to be great evidence that it is the latter: “At the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man” (Genesis 9:5,6)
HOWEVER--my personal opinion is that, while there are times when this must be stressed, we are living in a time when it is stressed too much. The concept of Theonomic Positivism (ie, "there is nothing either right or wrong, but the arbitrary decree of G-d makes it so") is ultimately just true in its own way. In our G-dless age, when what little morality the secular world still holds to is brandished as a weapon against His authority, I think the world has heard too much of "natural law" and such things. I also think the author of the article makes G-d too much a utilitarian inspiration for good behavior than the Supreme Source of what is right and what is wrong.
Sigh.
I take my soapbox out of the drawn, place it on the floor, stand on it and begin my speech.
Arguments like this are where secularist go astray because we do not challenge their assumptions correctly. They assume three things to be true which are actually false when they make a statement like this. Unfortunately many people that should know better at least partially believe the assumptions as well.
1.The first false assumption is that all religions are of equal value or are attempting to do the same thing
2. The second false assumption is that they believe the purpose of being religious is to make you a better person
3. The third false assumption is that they are assuming there is really such a thing as “good” or “moral” if there is no entity to define good or moral.
The first statement shows an utter lack of knowledge about the teachings and doctrines of various religions. The concept of “Nirvana” is a a good example of this in that it is a place where you achieve absolute nothingness; you know nothing, do nothing, experience nothing. That is a very different place conceptually from a Heaven. Indeed, Nirvana looks a lot more like a Christian Hell than a Christian Heaven. It is possible that all religion could be wrong, it is impossible that they can all be right. So saying you can be as good or moral as a religious person is meaning less if most religions are wrong or partially wrong
The second assumption is also easily seen to be false. Even in a religion like Buddhism which is the most works oriented religion you can find the object is not to do good deeds to make you a better person in the here and now but to be able to be re-incarnated into a higher form in the next life. Notice the good works are means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. To say I can do good, live morally without a Deity is beside the point because religious people are not being religious because it allows them to be better; often the reverse is true, religion helps us realize how bad they are.
The last area is a problematic one. If there is no God, there is no morality. About the best you can say is morality equals physics. For example gravity is everywhere. Its affects can be measured and predicted so it is WRONG to say I can float in the air rather walking down the stairs. But that type of universal or absolute is neither moral or immoral.
If there is no God then there is no reason other than expediency that we can say; Thou shalt not steal, kill, covet, forget your parents, work to hard, or behave unethically towards others but expediency is not the same as morality; even if doing these things can be shown to have what are widely considered to be deleterious affects upon society. This is why the left is dangerous. They place an artificial ideal above personal morality. It is OK to oppress one group to achieve the greater good. It is OK to lie cheat and steal to win an election because they’re ideology is superior and tells them they are moral people regardless of what the unenlightened would see as a crime.
Without an absolute arbiter of morality there is no should or should not but only can I get away with it. Without a moral code that comes from beyond our own experience there is no standard to measure goodness, right and wrong or righteousness. You can’t even be a subjectivist because you can have no valid scale to evaluate circumstances.
Here is what the secularist is really saying.
If all there is is what happens and there is no morality then all people are equally moral.
That is a world where Hitler, Mao, Ted Bundy and the gun wielding nut jobs at Columbine HS are just as moral as anyone else. That is the only way you can be moral in a world without moral absolutes
I put my soapbox back in the drawer and go back to work