Challenge to the religious who claim the moral high ground...?

Question

Can you name one morally virtuous act that could only be motivated by a religious person and not a non-believer?

On the other side, can you name one morally reprehensible act that could ONLY be motivated by religious belief?

My guess is that you cannot come up with one example for the first question, but can come up with many for the second.

I think I've proved my point. Any objections to my argument are solely based on theological presuppositions that god exists and Christ died for my sins. Any morally virtuous act can be motivated and performed by both the religious and the non-religious. However, religion often acts as the sole motivation for unforgivable atrocities.

Answer 1

A religious person can pray to God to help a sick friend. I consider this a virtuous act.

Answer 2

A religious person can motivate others. Lets talk about motivators like a Basketball coach, Football coach...etc

These type of people make good motivators and would be excellence in selling insurance, but now if your take that motivator that self reliant in his or her religious ways they will pursue it morally and ethically.

The act of being ones self in any aspiring job without limitations would be a morally virtuous act.

Answer 3

You miss the point entirely.
The question is rather whether a standard for ethics comes from an external source (a higher power) and is therefore immutable.....or whether the standard for ethics comes from an internal source (yourself) and is therefore mutable and entirely relative. That is the question you must ask...and the implications will answer your question.
Scenario One: Ethics are immutable. For example, killing is wrong because God says so. Lying is wrong for the same reason. You never have an excuse for going against this externally imposed set of ethics.
Scenario Two: Ethics are relative. Every person chooses what is right in his own mind, and every culture decides what is right within that culture. We have no right to judge someone else's ethics, because it is all relative. Suddenly, we can no longer judge a ruler in a culture that decides it is good and moral to kill all dissenters, or to take what they want by force.
It is a path that you choose. Immutable ethics work a whole lot better if you are simply a pragmatist, even if you are not religious. However, the only way to claim immutability is to invoke a higher power.
Does that help?

Answer 4

A Christian person has the ability to love their enemies, love unconditionally, and should love God to the point of dying for what he/she believes in. Unbelievers cannot love God and they cannot truly love unconditionally people who give them no reason to love them.

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 John 4:7-8

(Note: in the original Greek translation of the New Testament, the word used is "agape" which is a specific type of love that is spontaneous, unconditional, and not necessarily deserved. This text is not saying that unbelievers cannot love in general, but that they cannot love with "agape" love.)

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also." 1 John 4:20-21

The simple truth is that religious people who do hateful acts "in the name of God" do not really know God. There is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. It's possible to know alot about Christianity and do all the right stuff outwardly, but not really have a relationship with God or a changed heart. This same scenario happened in the Bible with the Pharisees. Jesus criticized them because even though they were religious leaders, they were not really concrened with knowing God or doing the right thing. And in the end, they crucified Jesus, supposedly "in the name of God." Those people never knew God, they just liked being self righteous and having the admiration of the people.

You are right in one way though. Religious people who claim the "moral high ground" need a reality check because we are all sinners and no one actually deserves to go to heaven. And although knowing God makes you a better person, only God can take credit for that. The only person who deserved the claim of the "moral high ground" was Jesus, and instead of pointing the finger at sinners, He went ahead and died for us so that we could live for eternity with Him in heaven. His sacrifice is the ultimate example of love.

Answer 5

Can the people who gave me a thumbs down explain why they did that?? What did I say that was so wrong. How were the crusades not a reprehensible act on religious grounds? Same question for the witch hunts by the puritans and the inquisition? I graduated from St. Louis University with a degree in Philosophy and Theology. So again someone please tell me why the thumbs down??

There are people who blow up abortion clinics on religious grounds because abortion is immoral. But is blowing up a building and injuring others any less immoral?

I'm just asking. I want clarification for the thumbs down.

Great question. You're right, I can't come up with anything for number 1, but for number 2 I can think of things done in history like the Crusades (mass killings in the name of religion), the inqusition, and the witch hunts. In today's society, I would say any killing done in the name of religious belief would qualify. I can't come up with more than that. Awesome question. That is really food for though

Answer 6

I think we're all sinners, I think we all struggle with morality and sin... I guess I need further explanation on the situation... Is there an underlying issue with religion or is this just something you've wondered about? I think all people can do wrong and right and it's not really a religious issue.

Answer 7

It would not matter how many examples one came up with, the bottom line is believing in Christ,

Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Answer 8

I don't claim the moral high ground because that's nonsense. None of us can claim a high ground lol.

But I suppose one act would be that I would die for my beliefs, would you die for yours? I asked a similar question a year or so ago ... if someone held a gun to your head and said "bow down and worship God or die", would you? Of the 26 answers I got from Atheists, every one said they would to spare their own life. Contrarily, I also asked the opposite, if someone said "denounce God or die", would you? And of the 15 Christians that answered, every one said "pull the trigger".

Not sure if that's a considered a morally virtuous act or not, but there ya go.

Answer 9

morally virtuous act-- Jesus died on the Cross for us


morally reprehensible act that could only be motivated by religious belief-- killing Jesus on the Cross

Answer 10

I can name "virtuous acts", i.e. moral behaviors, that are motivated by fear of punishment and by hope of reward. While that is moral behavior, it isn't "being moral".

The moral person does not act out of fear of punishment nor by hope of reward. In fact, we reserve some fairly harsh words to describe such people, e.g. cowards and suck-ups and sycophants. And by the way, a bad feeling as in "my conscience hurts me" is punishment and a good feeling when we do a good deed is reward. So feelings by themselves are not acceptable as a foundation for morality.

What is the foundation for your moral behavior other than rewards and punishments?