Morality Does Not Require Religion

Contrary to my usual method, I will presently argue a rather moderate position-but one absolutely essential to the preservation of a free, civil, and tolerant society. My purpose here is not to refute any religion or religion-based system of ethics. Nor is my purpose to dissuade anyone from adhering to a religion or religion-based system of ethics. On the whole, I consider ethics based on religion to have beneficial consequences in this world, and I have found the individuals today who genuinely practice a religious morality to be decent, respectable, trustworthy, and upright persons. Such people are my friends and neighbors, and I consider quality of life in the world to be substantially improved by their presence.

Because without a regenerated human spirit, they only perceive with the flesh and from soulish perspectives. Spiritual issues are then foolish to them.

An interesting aspect of morality vs ethics, is that God still has provided institutions for believers and unbelievers alike to live within. If one is moral within the institutions of volition, marriage, family and national governance, one can live fine within those institutions prior to the first death.

Atheists and Agnostics are many times apparently more morally conscience than many believers. For many, morality and ethics become counterfeits to living life through faith in Christ, so they many times will be even more rigorous in their devotion to that system than believers who allowed to drift out of fellowship with God in simple testing of their faith.

Conversely, some of the most miserable people in the world are believers who have failed to live morally, in part because they confuse moral behavior with the Christian way of life and secondly because their immoral behavior likely violated the rules associated with one of the above divinely established institutions. When His Will is violated by those in His family, He disciplines His children. So the immoral believer frequently is attacked by both sides, divine discipline as well as unbelievers who hate Christianity.

RE: the passage in Acts frequently associated with socialism, reread it within the context of the entire chapter, after discerning the difference between body, soul, and spirit, then how different believers are given different spiritual gifts by God the Holy Spirit, followed by the maturing process of a believer who is continually sanctified in their continuing walk with God through faith in Christ. Then reconsider the meaning of having in abundance and those with little.

The socialistic perception of the passage tends to be the soulish perspective, missing the more significant spiritual understanding as well as emphasis on loving our fellow man.

(Stolyarov wrote) Yet this is not what most other people - including some Christians - consider to be morality. For them and for me, morality is entirely a function of a person's *behavior*, and as such has nothing at all to do with the adjectives a person attaches to himself (Christian, atheist, conservative, socialist, etc.)

This is exactly the issue though. I would say that a Biblical definition of a 'Christian' would be one who follows Christ and accepts him as Lord and Saviour. To do so involves a change of behaviour... and a radical change at that.

This is expressed continually in the New Testament. Faith without action is dead. Teach them to obey all that I have commanded you. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of the world. Love your enemies. Pray for those that persecute you. Build each other up.

Each is action.

Thus for a Christian, the separation of 'Behavior' from 'Adjective' (Christian) should not exist.

Let me be clear however that this does not mean that all Christians ARE moral (in a Christian definition, meaning conforming to God's will), but it should be entirely true that all who are Christian are seeking to become more 'moral' and 'holy'. As you mentioned in your original posting, one of the claims of Christians is that their lives have changed. This is part of the evidence that they are who they claim to be... followers of Jesus Christ.

By 'Christian' in this context, I mean a Christian by a Scriptural definition such as the one above. I do not mean possessing a membership card, bumper sticker, embossed golf trophy, or even merely church attendance. Part of the confusion today stems from the fact that many people are not clear on what they are professing when they say 'I am a Christian'.

On a final note, I should mention that the "Actions" do not make you acceptable to God. From a Christian viewpoint, that can only be done through acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. The actions though, are an outward expression of an inner change. I change my actions to conform to my Father's will, because I now recognize Him as right. I seek to do His will because I love Him, and want to glorify Him.

Thank you for your interesting response.

You wrote: “People can and do logically choose non-life.” It is true that many people choose non-life; I contend, however, that they do not choose it *logically*, because the choice entails making a contradiction in the sense that the goal (non-life) requires its direct opposite (life) in order to be obtained. So unless people drop dead without any effort on their part, it cannot be said that they *consistently* choose non-life. It can only be said that they pursue mutually inconsistent behaviors and thus that their behaviors cannot be called moral, because morality requires logical consistency.

Furthermore, the very question of what is moral is only necessary for living beings. A dead person has no possibility for action, so morality is a moot issue for him - just as it is a moot issue for an inanimate object. Only living beings can act deliberately and thus only for them is morality a consideration. Thus, whatever you might think of my argument regarding the justification for valuing life, it is true that *morality presupposes an individual who is alive* and therefore any moral system must presuppose the value of this necessary condition.

Thank you for your clarification regarding Christian views regarding actions and how they serve as an expression of one’s beliefs.

I have a question for you that has always puzzled me, and I wonder if you could shed some light on it.

There are two people:

Person A calls himself a Christian and proudly displays his Christianity before the world. However, he does not wholeheartedly follow through on the actions that would display a consistently Christian belief. Instead, he merely talks about Christianity and goes through the socially acceptable religious rites. He commits what Christians would call sins on occasion and always repents in words, though his chances of committing further sins are not diminished by this.

Person B is an atheist but one with a firm moral code which coincides with Christian morality on most issues. Indeed, in his outward behaviors, he is virtually indistinguishable from a good Christian. The sins he commits are few, rare, minor, and sincerely regretted so as to reduce their likelihood in the future. He never talks about his ideas on morality with anybody but merely attempts to act according to his best moral judgment. But he does not believe in any God and considers Jesus to have simply been an influential human being with many good things to say.

Where actions are concerned, Person B is thus in far greater accord with Christian values than Person A.

But, from your best judgment as a Christian (if your beliefs can possibly allow to make a prediction on this matter), which of these two people would achieve greater favor in the eyes of God?

thanks.. here’s a quick response to your first rebuttal..

You contend that choosing non-life.. death is illogical. Only if one were not forced to choose between life and a higher value. And only if, contrarily, there were no higher value than life.

I ask you: Would you choose to live under all conditions?

Is there anything you would sacrifice your life for?

Is it illogical to say: “Some things are worth dying for.”?

Is a father who sacrifices his life for his child, or his squad-mates, or his country, therefore committing an immorall act?

thanks for your reply.. hope to continue a reply later..

Thank you for your interesting response.

I, personally, would not wish to sacrifice my life under any circumstances - including the most extraordinary pain and the most extreme oppression.

Here is why.

Let us presume, for instance, that I were enslaved to a brutal totalitarian regime. I would prefer such enslavement to death because circumstances could always change in the future. The totalitarian regime would not be permanent and would fall eventually, as history demonstrates. I would wish to bide my time and wait for the collapse, perhaps slowly undermining the regime from within.

There are numerous circumstances where I would be willing to fight and to place my life at risk - but not to renounce it outright. If the lives of my family members were endangered or the territory of my country invaded by a large army, I would certainly endeavor an active defense. But I would not be *giving away* or *sacrificing* my life in doing so. Rather, I would be doing my best to *survive* and *destroy* the menace. In the words of George Patton, the objective in such situations is not to die for one's for one's country, but to make the enemy die for his country.

A person's loved ones or squad-mates or country would indeed all be better off if that person *lived for them* rather than died for them, and in fighting to protect them, and individual ought to seek to preserve his life in order to achieve the most effective performance in sustaining *all* his values.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Nice question Stolyarov.

The answer depends on something that man cannot know with certainty, and that thing is the 'heart' of the man who calls himself a 'Christian'. Salvation/Rightness before God in Christian belief can ONLY come from faith in Jesus Christ.

This faith is not simply a statement of acceptance of Christ as Saviour, but also an acceptance of him as Lord. In essence it is a turning away from sin (rebellion against God and His ways), and a turning back to our Father who created us and knows us.

This can be seen refleced in such scriptural passages as "Believe in the Lord Jesus (note the use of 'Lord' before Jesus) and you will be saved" (Acts 16:3).

Becoming Christian is not simply accepting his salvation, but also involves subsequent change in life (not through your own action, but through the work of the Holy Spirit upon you). In 2 Timothy 2:19 we are told that everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from sin.

We cannot know the struggles that the 'Christian' in your comparison is going through, or whether there is slow difficult change being enacted in his thinking which will eventually play out in his action. In some ways, becoming Christian can be seen as a 2 step process (though in actuality they are both expressions of a single change).

The 1st 'step' is acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. The second step is allowing the Holy Spirit to work upon you to purify and change you. This latter is often called 'sanctification' and is what is meant by Protestants when they refer to 'Saints'.

The answer is that the athiest would have no opportunity for salvation, since his actions (however laudable) can never be enough to satisfy the standard of perfection that God embodies. Even if he had a desire in his heart to know Christ, he never softened his pride enough to accept Christ as Lord. Even in his noblest actions, he sadly falls short of God's glory, and in the final analysis is still in rebellion against God. Instead of accepting God, he is trying to 'become' God/perfection.

The Christian in question has possibilty of salvation, through God's fair judgement upon him. God does not judge by outward appearances, but by looking at his heart (Galatians 2:6, 1 Samuel 16:7).

The Parable of the Sower in Mark 4/Matthew 13/Luke 8 also has bearing in this. Please read it over and tell me your thoughts. My constant prayer is that I and my household run the race to the end, and be fruitful and glorify God.

Thank you for your response. I apologize for the lateness of my reply, but I have been giving your words some thought.

Your answer to my hypothetical question confirms a long-standing suspicion I have had regarding Christian belief — namely, that what is of utmost importance in Christianity is the *intellectual/emotional* acceptance of God, rather than what one does in the physical world. I understand that the Christian believes that the two go hand in hand and that the latter can be a manifestation of the former — yet it still seems to be the case that a person cannot gain salvation even if in his outward actions he follows (to the best of his ability) the moral laws allegedly put in place by God.

This paints a picture of God that is rather strange to me. Why would an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient being — who knows that he exists — require affirmation of his existence from a weak, limited, fallible human individual? Would it not be much more important (to a reasonable God) that a man obey God’s plan through his actions? After all, I do not care if the manufacturers of the products I buy know that I exist or believe in my existence — so long as they continue to supply me with the things I need to live my life according to my plan. Similarly, could God not see certain individuals as much more useful than others in accomplishing his plan, irrespective of whether they believe in him?

Your posts are always welcomed Stolyarov. I much prefer a delayed, well thought out response, than a quick and superficial one. I hope my response does justice to your query.

what is of utmost importance in Christianity is the *intellectual/emotional* acceptance of God, rather than what one does in the physical world
(posted by G. Stolyarov II)

I would say that that what God asks of us is complete obedience to Him, not acceptance of Him (though acceptance of Him as God would entail obedience I would assume). In the Garden of Eden, mankind first turned away from obedience to God, and listened to our own 'wisdom'. God calls us back to what we were created to be... in His image. I think the two passages below help clarify this.

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced,
Psalm 40:6
I take this to refer to Exodus 21:5, where a servant who truly loves his master refuses to go free, but instead willingly pledges his service for life. The sign of this is a piercing of the ears by his Master.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind.
Matthew 22:37
Our service to Him is to be from love, but is to include all facets of ourselves. Our emotions, our being, as well as our intellect. There are to be no Gods before God.

I think you are absolutely correct that an omnipotent, omniscient being would have no need for our affirmation. Yet neither would he have use or need for our actions. He is God and He has need of nothing.

We have nothing we can offer him to buy His love. No action we do, nothing driven by our imperfect will and desire will satisfy the requirements of a God who is perfect.

Yet this same God also tells us that He loves us... loves us so much that He expresses His love through the sacrifice of His one and only Son. He loves us, and desires us to know Him and dwell in His company. But to do so requires rightiousness that cannot come from our actions. It can only come from Him.

Through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God provided a sacrifice that was acceptable to Him, because it came from Him. Just as when Abraham went to offer his son Isaac in sacrifice, God provided a 'better' sacrifice, in Christ God provides the only sacrifice that could suffice.

The only act required or accepted of a man for his salvation in God's eyes, is simply true acceptance of what God has provided. It is a statement that salvation is, was, and forever shall be beyond man's power... but can rest only in trust in God.

Obedience to God's plan involves acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. Anything else remains rebellion... to try to 'buy' rightness with God through our own actions vs through God's power. The 'moral laws' never promised salvation, but were merely a guide until the coming of Christ.

If you look through the Bible, you find that God very rarely uses the 'best' people in accomplishing His plans. He chooses those people that we would cast off, to demonstrate that it is not through the man that things get done, but through God's power.

God is not a consumer or a manufacturer. He is the Father, who truly knows what is best for His children, and simply calls them in from the darkness to live the life they were created to live.

I hope this helps clarify things, but I welcome any further questions or comments you may have. I'm afraid my own wisdom is limited, and can only trust that the Holy Spirit uses what I have posted to His purposes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.