I am
G. Stolyarov II,
Editor-in-Chief,
And socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin. But it always ends that way.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
This is how it always starts.
Bottom line from your piece:
Without a religious foundation behind a person’s moral code, EACH PERSON essentially is the decider of what right and wrong is. Each person becomes the ultimate authority (ie God) of their own moral universe. It would be nice if you were never wrong eh?
Further, without a religious foundation behind a person’s moral code, there is no single benchmark that all measure their moral codes against. There are no effective absolutes, and morals become nothing practically more than personal preferences. Even if a bunch of people agree on certain things, and maybe even so strongly that they feel laws need to be passed to ensure (fill in the blank), it still is about personal preferences of a bunch of like minded people.
Without a religious foundation behind a person’s moral code, people can have a very well-defined moral code, and have a lot of different moral beliefs, but that clearly does not mean these people are good people or are ‘doing the right thing.’ This can even happen with people who follow certain religions as well. Based on your parameters, ‘moral’ and ‘right’ are not the same thing. Socialists and communists had morals and followed them, and yet almost nobody holds them up as being ‘morally right’ or examples of ‘good people’. The Islamic suicide bombers live by a moral code but they are not morally right or doing good things.
Morality does not exist without God.
Wh do so many rationalists assume a pose of intellectual superiority when in fact they lose the argument every time?
Since “morality” by defintion means submission to the decrees of the Creator, you’re making an ass of yourself.
Thanks for posting this thought provoking article Stolyarov.
I think it, and it’s responses, provide some excellent insights. I’m going to post some brief responses to some of the bits I find most intriguing.
First of all, you are absolutely correct that morality (or rather ‘moral’ behaviour in the general sense) is not dependant entirely upon ‘religion’. There are ‘good’ people everywhere and among every socio-cultural group. Yet from a Christian perspective, ‘good’ is entirely dependant upon obedience to an unchanging God, and from this perspective, none of us are ‘good’, since we all fall of His glory.
A person that accepts Christ as his Lord makes the commitment to turn from following his own path and decisions, and turns toward God for leadership of his life.
From a Christian perspective, true ‘morality’ can thus only come from acceptance of Christ, because if he is real and who he claims to be, then only He is able to determine what is truly Good. This does not mean that a person cannot be ‘moral’ in the judgement of his peers, but rather that that ‘morality’ is not the same as that discussed by Christians.
“(Moral) conduct can be summarized, roughly but comprehensively, by the exhortation, ‘Live and let live,’ with the caveat, ‘unless the other person does not let you live.’”
Yet ‘moral’ conduct for a follower of Christ is not this, and this is part of the dilemna. To be ‘moral’ in a Christian sense is to love God with all my heart, all my soul, and all my mind, and to truly love my fellow man. Love in this context does not mean to merely ‘let live’, but to keep no record of wrongs, to forgive them, to build the other person up, and to seek after their ‘good’.
None of us live up to this perfect standard of love, but because we love and serve a God who is Holy, we continually strive to allow him to change us, and to make us holy.
“The assertions of Christians that Christianity has made them more moral can seldom be disputed; many individual Christians can offer ample and firm evidence for ways in which their religion has enhanced their virtue.”
If you were to talk to these people, I think you would find that most will credit the change not to their own actions/strength, but to the influence of a living and loving Spirit of God acting upon them. This is not merely a semantic distinction. There is power in the name of Christ, and that power is simply evidence to his claim of who he is.
He Is.
“And socialism doesn’t have to result in economic laziness and ruin. But it always ends that way.”
I find this comment interesting, since it implies (without evidence that I’m aware of) that Stolyarov is somehow socialist, and reflects a blurring of Christianity with Capitalism/America.
Before we critique socialisn though, we should remember that in the book of Acts, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 2:44-45). Karl Marx had a background in Christian schools if I recall correctly, and his mistake perhaps lies in trying to enact some of Christ’s teachings separated from their totality, and more importantly, separate from Christ.
Which is closer to scriptural teaching? To provide and share what we have with all people, or to seek after our own wealth and benefit?
I might also add that most other countries in the world would be considered socialist by American standards, and as China in particular demonstrates, they are not in economic ruin.
True. However, only because God has placed the natural law into each man’s heart. Once natural law is abandoned, as it has been, then man is without a moral compass. This is the beginning of relativism. Once relativism is rooted, buh-bye morality. Your only hope then is a good old fashioned revival.
It’s impossible to make moral/ethical decisions without some basis or value transcending reason. Hence defined as religious.
This transcendent value may be chosen with awareness, without awareness or accepted as true, self-evident or axiomatic.
But you cannot act if you are forever building conditional reasons.
Rationalists are no exception.
Some Existentialists say that. Are there any Existentialists left or have they all finally died off to join their Surrealist ancestors?