Are Christians morally superior compared to Non-Christians?

[Humanist_Activist]

I see a lot of self professed Christians on this board who are quick to call other self professed Christians false Christians, or saying they behave contrary to Christian belief of some sort when said Christians do something most of us would label bad. So the only reasonable assumption is that all these Christians believe that "true" Christians are more moral, by default, than non-Christians.

Is there something wrong with this inference? Is it a baseless assumption, or just experience?

Here's a further question, how does one "Act Christian"? How would it compare to someone who acts Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Jewish, or any other non-Christian religion.

[Make7]

1. Perhaps not in this life, but certainly in the next. ( n/t )

j/k

[elocs]

2. Don't know, but I do know that those who do not shop at Walmart are morally superior

to those that do; and those who righteously do not watch tv are certainly morally superior to those who do watch; or at least they act that way.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. The labels that are applied to certain groups of people and the labels

that certain groups choose to use to describe themselves seem to have very little effect on how people actually treat each other.

[LaurenG]

4. Anyone who cares for others has my support

I don't care what anyone believes, in fact its none of my business. No specific religion or non religion need claim superiority, we're all human and we all suck sometimes.

“Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.” ` Dalai Lama. “Allaah ordained kindness on everything” The Prophet Mohammed. “Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God,” The prophet Micah. "The greatest virtue is kindness" various Hindu traditions. "Kill Em With Kindness" The Rational Response Squad (A place for activist atheists to unite)

[Deep13]

31. As a practical matter, I agree.

In 2004, I was at a local parade about to march for the Kerry campaign. One of the other volunteers said he just came from church and would be working for Jesus Christ and John Kerry. I don't believe in any god, but I still responded with "hallelujah" and meant it.

[Rowdyboy]

5. Only the ones who breastfeed their uncircumcised baby boys while dining at Olive Garden.....

[ejpoeta]

6. well I don't profess myself to be a christian so i guess you may not be referring to me

but I DO tend to call out those who like to CALL themselves christian and then do or say things contrary to what they supposedly state to believe. things which are contrary to the book they supposedly purport to live their life by. Personally, I do not think anyone is more or less moral based on whether they are or aren't christian. but I tend to hold my purse tighter to me when someone goes around shouting how christian they are to make sure I hear them.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. That's actually a big part of the problem, you make an automatic assumption...

that the Bible is a decent moral guide book, read it sometime, and then try to figure out which people who call themselves Christian are doing things contrary to the Bible.

[jwirr]

7. As a Christian my answer is NO. Nor was I taught that.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. OK, so you would agree that some bad people are Christian?

Just like any other group of people?

[jwirr]

11. I personally subscribe to the idea that ALL have fallen short of the

glory of God which puts us all on a very level playing field. How we act is our own responsibility. No one is better than anyone else.


Except the rethugs of course!:sarcasm:

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Ugh, that's a disgusting and demeaning thought...

I have not fallen short, I'm a human being and bow to no god. I refuse, refuse, to believe that human beings should be debased in this way. How little you value your fellow people, ugh, this attitude that you display pisses me off. :grr:

[LaurenG]

13. Its not an attitude its their belief. I don't understand why it pisses you off

since it has nothing to do with you. How does this tie in to how much they value others and just because you believe strongly that you owe no allegiance to any God, why would you mind what someone else believes?

[Humanist_Activist]

14. He expressed a belief about his fellow human beings, including me, how can I not be pissed?

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand? And it illuminates exactly how much he values human life, beliefs inform attitudes, after all.

[LaurenG]

15. Wait, what part of "I personally believe..." do you not understand?

It's not your business since they aren't forcing that belief on you. I think you should think carefully because there are religious fanatics that sound very angry at the beliefs of others and would gladly blow a million or more of us to bits because of that belief. Maybe think of your own beliefs and how they inform your attitude and how you are (unintentionally?) coming across as a fanatic (from the other extreme) as well.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Oh please, that's a ridiculous line of thought, if someone says...

"I personally believe that white people are superior to blacks." That you wouldn't get angry and passionate in your offense and argument against that. And don't you DARE attempt to equate this with religious fanaticism, I'm a Humanist above all else, I value human life, human freedom and human dignity above all else. He is much more likely to kill others for his beliefs than I am. At least I value human life, even his with his disgusting opinion.

[LaurenG]

17. That would make you a racist then instead of just an intolerant hot head.

Your posts are fanatical and unhinged, you can't seem to separate the belief from an attack against yourself and yes, your intolerance is quite offensive. There may be many here who are too kind to tell you that they believe that your beliefs are disgusting as well. Personally I find your attacks offensive but feel you are entitled to your beliefs. It would be really helpful if you weren't so fanatical in the way you express yourself.

If you really valued freedom and human dignity you wouldn't be trying to shame and humiliate others for their beliefs.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. When you think someone's beliefs are wrong, you call them out on it...

that's not intolerance, that's disagreement and I'm sure many here think my beliefs are disgusting, and that's lamentable, you call me unhinged and even offensive, and I wonder why, he made a supposition that every human being on the planet lacks something, falls short of the "glory of god" whatever that is, yet I'm the fanatic.

But then again, I haven't even properly articulated my beliefs, have I? I hinted at them, so why not actually just state them outright?

I personally believe that every person born on this planet is born with the potential to be anything they want. All of us are born with tools to aid us in this, they just need to be encouraged. Critical thinking, education, science, art, literature, poetry. Whatever an individual wants to do should be encouraged and nurtured by society, we should invest in our future in realistic ways, without appealing to an afterlife that may not even be there. I'm not interested in entering Heaven, I want to help build it, right here on Earth, for the sake of all our children and grandchildren.

All human beings have an inherent value, all our experiences are valuable, and all of us can contribute to the rest of the human race in meaningful ways. We are not perfect beings, but its that very imperfection that gives us the opportunity to do great things, to enjoy life to the fullest, and to enjoy each other. Why is being positive, in thinking that human beings can be inherently good, so disgusting and offensive?

[LaurenG]

19. No you don't. Otherwise you would have a boatload of religious people

telling you that you are wrong and telling you that you're disgusting. That would be intolerance not "disagreement." You have NO right to try and tell others what to believe, you can state what you believe and attempt to argue your case but you are out of line to whack others over the head and reinterpret what they say and expect anything but a correction to your reinterpretation.


You are trying to tell others that in order to have the opportunity to do great things, to enjoy life to the fullest, and to enjoy each other that they must adhere to your belief system instead of allowing them to believe and find what brings to them those very things. You don't get to decide for others what is best for them and that is how you are coming across as offensive.

Do you believe that only you know best for the whole world?

[Humanist_Activist]

20. Uhm, what the fuck are you talking about?

What belief system would that be? I said people should be able to do what they WANT, that includes beliefs.

Also people tell me I'm wrong all the time, hell, you are one of them, why don't you be tolerant of my beliefs, seems to me you are bigoted. Never was called disgusting, and haven't called anyone disgusting, now I said the thought he had was disgusting, but it sounds like you are taking my opinions and beliefs, and taking it personally when it wasn't even directed at you and wasn't even personal. Surely a sign of fanaticism.

[LaurenG]

37. Can we stick to the point here

and the point is that it is wrong no matter who does it. You are the one doing it now not anyone else.
I said that you come off very angry, offensive and fanatical not that I care what your personal beliefs are.

Go back and re-read our conversation and try stay with the subject.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. You know what, I just realized the funniest thing about this exchange we had...

I have yet to personally attack anyone in this thread, I attacked ideas, yet you call me unhinged and a fanatic, and you claim I'm the intolerant one?

The messed up part is that you will claim the high road, even when undeserved.

[LaurenG]

38. Oh - you're a victim now?

Again its not your beliefs, its the way your posts come across.

Good luck in your quest to make the world a better place, we all have our part to play.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. No I'm not a victim, just pointing out your hypocrisy. n/t

[LaurenG]

42. Read it again, there is no hypocrisy.

In fact if you knew anything about me at all you'd know I really believe in fairness and that I fall closer to you in my beliefs than most others.

What a shame that in your dogmatic diatribe you missed the entire point of this dialog.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. Ok, I call someone's BELIEFS stupid, you turn around and question my sanity(personal attack)...

and now you are calling me dogmatic? How deep a hole do you want to dig for yourself?

Is there any personal attack you haven't used yet, why not start calling me a potential terrorist or something, come on, prove how low Christians can go!

[LaurenG]

44. Read it again. You took someone elses beliefs extremely personally

and then made yourself angry about it. No one else was trying to demonize you for your beliefs but you lost it and called other people's personal beliefs disgusting. No one was insisting you believe as they do and no one else called your beliefs disgusting.

I wish you would calm down long enough to notice what you just did. I did say you were coming off as fanatical.
I did mention that fanaticism was also a personality defect of those who want to harm others. I did not say you wanted to harm others but I did ask if you thought you knew what was best for the rest of the world. You never did answer that btw.

edit: typos

[Humanist_Activist]

47. Of course I was(and am) angry about it, it was offensive...

I wouldn't call that extreme however, and I still don't understand why you think its extreme to point out that perpetuating beliefs that humanity has "fallen short" as it were can be damaging. Not to mention the ugly mentality behind such beliefs.

See, this is probably where we really entered cross purposes, for some reason, my calling that poster's beliefs "disgusting" crossed a line with you, a line I really don't understand. You see, if someone did say that my beliefs were disgusting, I'd be HAPPY, because they are addressing the beliefs, not me personally. Do you know how frustrating it is to get into an argument with someone, and they won't even address your beliefs directly, but instead your character, mental stability, etc?

I don't know why this is a line for you, but here goes, beliefs should be examined on their own merits, and if found wanting, then confronted, denounced, etc. This is how debate takes place, I'm sure you find many people's beliefs disgusting, and will argue with them about it, why is it that my doing the same is so horrible and/or extreme to you?

Do I think I know what's best for the world? Of course, better education, increasing science literacy and encouraging critical thinking skills. I already answered this above, before you even asked the question.

[LaurenG]

49. It is not up to you to decide for others what is and isn't

damaging. Certainly there are those who will try and hurt others with their beliefs. That is wrong no matter who is doing it. Your beliefs are fine with me but your posting style is mean spirited and comes across exactly the same way a bible thumper or extremist would come across to me. I don't know how much clearer I can be with this.

You are correct I can't stand others trying to shove their dogma down my throat, but no one here is doing that except you. To suppose that others here have not done their own thinking about this is arrogant. Do you not see how condescending your posting style is? What gives you the idea that anyone in this forum doesn't want "better education, increasing science literacy and encouraging critical thinking skills." Are you under the impression that because others have faith that they are not quite as smart as those who reject theocracy? You are doing to othersexactly what you are saying offends you.

You have no clue what path anyone here has walked and the way you state your opinions are offensive, not the opinions themselves, it is your style that is off putting.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Whoa, what are you talking about, shoving dogma down people's throats?

This is a DISCUSSION board, do you understand what that means? Also, of course I have EVERY right to judge other people's beliefs, its my judgment, if you disagree with it then fine, justify to me how my judgment is wrong.

But you are attributing WAY TOO MUCH to what is ultimately, a difference of opinion on a belief.

As far as the rest of the post, no, smartness is an indication of intelligence, critical thinking is a skill anyone can learn. In addition, people of faith can be just as smart as those without, they just exempt some of their beliefs from critical examination, otherwise they wouldn't have faith.

[LaurenG]

51. So I will call this conversation over, I can't get beyond your defensiveness,

or get you to understand that my beef is with your offensive style not your opinion.

Best of luck here and welcome to DU, I'm sure we'll see each other around.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. I have no problem with my style being labeled offensive...

hell if you stopped there, I'd have agreed and we would have moved on, but then you took it up to 11 and frankly I'm just mystified as to why.

The overreaction was way, way beyond anything I even implied to say, that's all I'm saying.

[LaurenG]

54. Oh geez please - I have noticed that you use this tactic frequently

and frankly it feels creepy and dishonest. Your over-reaction to someone stating their belief was what started this whole thing but you go on trying to spin this.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. What tactic, noticing that some people have no problems questioning my sanity, integrity...

and levelheadedness, yet they seem to think I'm so much worse than them because I questioned one person's belief without insulting the person themselves.

Again, I ask, what else are you going to imply about me?

[LaurenG]

58. Everything I think has been said. Its all right there so all you have to do is

re-read it. You can try and twist my disagreement with you into something it wasn't but its right here for everyone to see.

[cleanhippie]

70. It's the way you come across. So the point doesn't matter at all?

[darkstar3]

23. "a boatload of religious people telling you that you are wrong...

and telling you that you're disgusting."

Yes, this sounds familiar. Or maybe you haven't been paying attention to the message pouring from Christian radio, Christian TV, Christian written publications, the Fox News website, news interviews containing phrases like "he was such a good Christian and a leader in his church, no one would have believed he was a child molester," and on, and on, and on...

The message I hear every day is that non-Christians are morally inferior...

[LaurenG]

36. It doesn't make it right, it makes the accusers sound like idiots

and fanatics. This wasn't about that not happening its about how wrong that fanatical thinking is no matter who spews it.

[okasha]

53. The irony in the midst of all this rhetorical fireworkery

is that you actually appear to agree with the statement that so offends you.

Jwirr says "All have fallen short of the glory of God."

You say "We are not perfect beings."

The two statements mean the same thing. One is religiouisly phrased; the secnd is not. That's the only difference. What seems to anger you is not the idea but the idiom in which the idea is expressed.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. Actually no they don't, there's a key difference between them...

One is a value judgment on humans contrasting them with a supposedly perfect deity, and the second is a statement of fact, but you forget a key thing, nothing is perfect, and perfection itself, being ill defined, is really impossible to attain. We should strive to do the best we can, that's all we should ever expect from each other.

[okasha]

59. They're both value judgements.

One takes God as the standard; you take "perfection" as the standard, even though you can't define it, which seems rather sloppy.

Both views would agree that the standard is impossible to attain, and that 'doing the best we can" is in fact the best we can do.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. The problem is "perfect" is subjective, and most people recognize that...

however, so it would depend on what you mean by perfect as to whether its attainable, for example, a perfect world would be a world with no suffering. This is unattainable, because not all suffering can be eliminated, but can we make a world where people don't starve to death, die of preventable disease, or be oppressed? Yes we can, and we should. Strive towards bettering the world, without an end goal in sight, because really, its the journey that matters.

Contrast this with Christianity, for example, to live means to suffer in this world, on the hope that you are faithful enough to be rewarded with going to heaven.

[okasha]

62. You're confusing Christianity and Buddhism.

n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

63. Well, I was raised Catholic, and frankly, Catholics definately suffer for...

their faith.

[saras]

10. No. Absolutely not. Next question?

Unfortunately, way back around 300BC when Christianity was institutionalized, they erected a fairly large gulf between acting "Christian" and trying to live the way that Christ instructed. The institution has been trying to claim Christ's charisma without following his advice forever afterwards.

[Leontius]

22. Here's a question., what is the proper response to a self

important condescending asshole whose on sense of superiority makes one want to puke?

[provis99]

24. tough question. How do you respond to Christians?

[darkstar3]

26. "I'm not in the market for a new religion. Good day."

[darkstar3]

27. "Now is THAT how you demonstrate the 'fruits of the spirit' I'm supposed to be looking for?"

[darkstar3]

29. "Goodnight, mother."

[darkstar3]

30. Or you could just tell us what response you and your fellow haters would like.

[Deep13]

32. Vomiting, I suppose.

:shrug:

[Humanist_Activist]

40. "Stop acting Christian."

I got nothing. :shrug:

[darkstar3]

25. No. But clearly the majority of them believe so.

Some will express that belief overtly, through statements regarding the "goodness" of Christian people and the "evil nature" of others.

Some will express that belief in a more subversive way, as they claim that "no true Christian" could be a monster, a racist, a republican, etc.

[Deep13]

28. Sometimes, sometimes not.

As a group, I think atheists do better than Christians or any other kind of religious believer. I think critical thinking leads to better results than religious faith and atheists are free to disregard harmful doctrines that many Christians either accept without questioning or feel they have a duty to accept despite their better judgment. (I was once in the second group). For instance during the American Civil Rights Movement those in support of civil rights tended to be evenly split between religious (including its leadership) and nonreligious, secular people. Those against civil rights where almost uniformly Christian.

Still, blanket statements are dangerous because persons are not groups. I have no trouble accepting that most of the religious people on this forum are in practice better people--that is to say morally superior--than any Randian atheist. Recall that is the non-religious doctrine that selfishness is the only real virtue. I have no doubt that William Jennings Bryan with all his faults was a better person than Stalin. On the other hand, atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, a seriously flawed person, is still morally superior to Hitler (who at least professed to be a Catholic), Mussolini (who was a Catholic) or Joseph Ratzinger, the current ruler of the R.C. Church. It really depends on the person.

I usually use the term "skeptic" rather than atheist for myself because I do not want to be lumped in with either the Randroids or Stalinist, not that there are very many of them in this country. I don't know how Ayn Rand arrived at a lack of belief in god, but for Stalin it was an article of faith as part of the communist system. Obviously, anything that is arrived at by faith is not the kind of atheism I am usually talking about.

[Leontius]

33. This may not be the most profound or well composed

but in all groups you have searchers and followers and in my experience being one of the searchers is almost always the best way. You may err but at least it is you who is responsible for the outcome.

[Deep13]

45. Agreed. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

41. Your's is a nuanced and reasonable thought, and has no room here on this board...

:)


Besides, my post was about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy so many Christians on this board employ. The implication being that no true Christian can be bad or do bad things, hence REAL Christians are automatically morally superior to everyone else.

[Deep13]

46. The funny thing about that is...

...part of being a true Christian is regularly affirming that one is a sinner and unworthy of God's favor. Some denominations do this formally by confessing to a priest while others just make generalized assertions either privately or en masse as part of the worship ritual. So I don't see how that admission squares with the sense of moral superiority that many Christians have.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. Oh that's easy, Christians may be sinners in the eyes of God, but they are better than heathens.

at least, that's the attitude many of them have, and some will come right out and say that this is what they believe.

[Angry Dragon]

34. There is only one way to settle the Christian debate

A committee consisting of one member from each Christian religion will investigate and interview each person desiring to be a Christian.
If all votes are cast in favor then that person shall be issued a laminated Christian card to be carried at all times.
Even one vote against will classify that person as a heathen and they can not come before the panel for two years.
Any person not coming in front of the Christian Committee can just call themselves a heathen and then go directly to the gates of Hell without any vote taken.

This should clarify any doubt of who a Christian is or is not.

[Iggo]

35. No.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. No, they're just...

...more well-connected.

[LeftishBrit]

61. No

But there is a lot in core Christian ethics that, in common with the core ethics of many religions and of humanism, emphasizes kindness to others. There is a lot more in the Gospels about loving thy neighbour and helping poor and sick people than there is about homosexuality or abortion; in fact, I don't think Jesus is quoted as saying anything about the latter topics!

This is not specific to Christianity, however, but to most serious moral codes.

[deacon_sephiroth]

64. Dr. Pepper just came out my nose

Damn your topic sentence to baddy make-believe land!

[Taverner]

65. They sure think they are...

[drakonyx]

66. No, it's a myth Christians themselves perpetuate

They like to compare themselves to others in black-and-white terms. Good vs. evil. When we start thinking this way, we buy into that mindset. I have no desire to do that. The world is infinitely more complex than that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. I run from anyone who tells me they are a Christian.

If they are a good person, they don't need to advertise it. I will find out soon enough if they are good or bad by their words and actions.

I do know some genuinely good people that are Christian, but they don't go around telling people they are. I found it out in a subtle way.

Generally, if a person thinks a Christian is better than another person, they are gullible and easily separated from their money.

[struggle4progress]

68. ... Then a certain ruler asked him: Good Teacher, what must I do to win eternal life?

And Jesus replied: Why call me good? No one is good except G-d ... (Luke 18)

So the gospel directly suggests one ought not consider oneself "good"

[Curmudgeoness]

69. Well, they certainly think that they are. nt