Replies

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.

Clarity is served if we reverse the order in which the remarks below were made:

'- Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
Socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin, - it would work if everyone desperately wanted it to. -'

I find this comment interesting, since it implies (without evidence that I'm aware of) that Stolyarov is somehow socialist,

On the contrary, - as we see by the reversal, - the author is attempting to justify a socialist POV; - that our golden rule "only makes sense" when used in a communal way, when "there is something bigger to consider than number one."

and reflects a blurring of Christianity with Capitalism/America.
Before we critique socialism 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?

Constitutionally speaking, after seeing to your own wealth and benefit, nothing prevents you from providing and sharing with all people. -
- However, forced sharing of "what we have" is not permissible.

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.

China is not in economic ruin because the are rapidly adopting a non-socialist "Capitalism/America" style business system. - Unfortunately, individual rights are not a part of their system.

Thank you for your comments. They have been among the most intelligent and civil on this thread thus far, and I commend you for your exemplary demeanor; I also appreciate your perspective.

It seems that some of this issue regards the definition of morality. Some Christians *define* morality with respect to their God, which makes it quite easy for them to claim that anybody who does not believe in their God is somehow immoral.

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.) or the kinds of sound vibrations his mouth produces in air. The morality of a person, under this view, is solely a function of the way that person intentionally affects his own life and the life of other human beings - and in the real world, a person's words and philosophical beliefs have far less of a role in this than most would think.

For the record, I am as staunchly opposed to socialism as one can get -- as even a cursory examination of my writings would show. Only in the contemporary United States is the mistake of equating a devotion to political liberty with Christianity made. Virtually at no other time or place in history have the two doctrines been seen as indistinguishable from one another.

Let this be a warning to anyone else reading this thread: if some elements of the right continue to marginalize and demonize people who *agree with them politically* but do not hold their religious views, then I can guarantee that the conservative movement will be dead, and freedom will be dead in this country quite soon.

I am
G. Stolyarov II