Actually, good works are not necessarily supposed to be done in secret. Matt. 5:16 indicates that good works are to be seen by others for the purpose of God being glorified. So since God does not receive any glory from the atheist's secret good work, it is not really "good" in that the goal of glorifying God is not present.
I had a feeling you where teasing. I'm more concerned with others believing your teasing as what I am.
Again, I'm not addressing the question "would the Christian God care much for the good deeds of atheists". Obviously, atheists aren't getting into your heaven whether they are correct or not -- that case is closed! The original question was dealing with morality -- the judgment of particular actions here on earth as right or wrong.
Is it murder that a lion kills their cubs to benefit their pride; or is it murder for Stalin to kill millions of people he believed would be a detriment to "Mother Russia"?
But if we're asking about God-based morality, then the purpose of the action impacts the "level" of morality to be assigned. Therefore, a good work undertaken with no intention to glorify God cannot be considered morally right.
But I think I made my point of the other, don't you agree? You may not agree with my theology; but we are in the context of my theology, no?
On a side note (and I apologize for yet another tangent), this is a fantastic example of Biblical contradictions. Consider Matthew 6:1-4.
AGAIN. If we are asking about God-based morality, the case for atheists is closed. Why even discuss it further? Also see my post on conspicuous giving above.
Actually that makes a lot of sense. If you give for the Glory of God, then tell the world. If you give for your own Glory, then don't tell anyone. If you give for the Glory of God, but use it to glorify yourself, then you get no reward.
Are we? I understood your original question as "how can anything be judged good or bad without a god to tell you so"? This is examining the philosophical consequences on morality in the absence of a deity. Did I misread the question?
"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Nothing unclear about that: GIVE IN SECRET.
Exactly--well said. Of course, ultimately the hope would be that the recipient would actually be the one who would be glorifying God because of the blessing of the gift.
totally false. not in the context of descriptive morality he doesn't. when you say humans have morality "infused" into us, you're just referring to how certain behavior tends to make us feel. emotional reaction is intimately tied to instict. we are no different than animals in that regard. if you want to get into prescriptive morality (knowledge of what we actually SHOULD do, not why we behave the way we do), obviously we don't have that infused into us since there are very few moral issues humans agree universally about.
Who knows what lions think. We humans - almost universally - call what Stalin did murder, whether or not we deemed it necessary. Why do we need a stone tablet to condemn it? Some may disagree with that condemnation, but that uncertainty, that subjectivity, is part of what defines our human condition.
Got it. Glorify in secret, such that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, but make sure everyone can witness and acknowledge the glory of God in your conspicuous action. Makes perfect sense!
Plat may have not seen the debate before you asked that question. But I already answered it. Regardless if we are Christians or Atheists (And I'm just using only Atheists because it seems this is only what you are talking about); both have the moral code in us given by God. And both of us, Christians and Atheists, can do just as much morally wrong as morally right. Just because you are a Christian, doesn't mean you somehow become morally better than a non-christian. All it means is "Christians" found God. They are born again and don't have to worry about life after death. What we choose to do in life will just effect others and their possible leading to Christ. Example: Look at the "Cruisades" of medieval times. They assumed they were glorifying God by forcing others through violence to accept Christ or their religion. There could be a large possibility that many muslims actually "Outwordly accepted", but internally they didn't. They did this for their own Glory. As you can see, this only created a problem to non-believers, because of their inability to morally do what they felt was right for God. Jesus Christ tells us to be a good example, so others see a change in your life and be witnessed to God's glory. If they see a arrogant "I'm so right and you are so wrong" type person; then that isn't moral. That's actually far from it. I picture Christians proving and showing what is God's love. In the end, that is only important. How much moral works you do mean nothing. But not showing morality; shows everything. I think this is where some Christians have it all wrong. They believe a suit and tie, and proclaiming how much they tithe or how many people they lead to the Lord, somehow makes them a better Christian. That is so far beyond the truth. A true Christian shows how much they love their God by striving to be moral; even though they know that it is impossible.
True. In my case, that's the work of the Holy Spirit. OK, well, along with the guidance of the Scriptures. They work in tandem.
