frosbel2:
Morals are built into us as human beings, we know right from wrong because it is programmed into our DNA. It is our choice to do bad or good and each choice we make , makes it easier the next time to repeat the same decision, i.e evil decisions leads to more evil while good decisions lead to more good.

Nobody needs Jesus or Religion to be GOOD or remain BAD.

Its a matter of CHOICE !!

You're mixing things up Frosbel.....I thought you know better than this. Morality and righteousness of God are two different things. While the OP is right that some Atheists are more moral than some Christians does that justify the Atheist as being righteous in the sight of God? Your title is misleading sir

frosbel2:
Morals are built into us as human beings, we know right from wrong because it is programmed into our DNA. It is our choice to do bad or good and each choice we make , makes it easier the next time to repeat the same decision, i.e evil decisions leads to more evil while good decisions lead to more good.

Nobody needs Jesus or Religion to be GOOD or remain BAD.

Its a matter of CHOICE !!

Religion is even a destroyer of morality. Take Christianity for example; it teaches that "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.

Another chapter says "as many as call upon the name of the lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13, Acts 2:21.

What this means is that Christians subconsciously feel a sense of entitlement to commit any type of crime. But what they don't understand is that you'll almost never be able to live an upright life if you adopt this philosophy. This philosophy is even the path to Hell.

This's why you have a murderer like David West, fervently identifying with Christianity in prison. He's of the impresion his Jesus would save him at the last minute of his life like the thief crucified along with his Christ.

Christianity is the perfect way to hell.

Christianity isnt a real 'religion'.

Christianity is a malicious Eurocentric ideology that was manufactured by the Romans.

Christianity is a fake Hellenistic religion.

Historians have proven that many of the more famous concepts of the Roman Christians are carry overs of popular Roman-Greco concepts
i.e the Mass is a direct assimilaion of a Roman General's barbaric celebration of victory that was turned into a Hellenistic ritual by the followers of the Church of Serapis Christus. In the original Roman celebration, they drank the liquids of their victims and consumed them as part of the meal. That was evolved into drinking wine and eating bread.

Christianity is a Roman mockery of the Hellenistic religions.

Goshen360:


You're mixing things up Frosbel.....I thought you know better than this. Morality and righteousness of God are two different things. While the OP is right that some Atheists are more moral than some Christians does that justify the Atheist as being righteous in the sight of God? Your title is misleading sir

Righteousness simply means living right in compliance with basic moral principles. The imputation of righteousness to an unrepentant , serial, wicked Christiasn by Christ is a MYTH and will remain a MYTH for all eternity.

The sinner will die for his own sins, no man can die for the sins of another man. You can believe what the white man told you but I have decided to be honest with myself and speak the truth.

How are you anyway ? :-)

musicwriter:


Religion is even a destroyer of morality. Take Christianity for example; it teaches that "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.

Another chapter says "as many as call upon the name of the lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13, Acts 2:21.

What this means is that Christians subconsciously feel a sense of entitlement to commit any type of crime. But what they don't understand is that you'll almost never be able to live an upright life if you adopt this philosophy. This philosophy is even the path to Hell.

This's why you have a murderer like David West, fervently identifying with Christianity in prison. He's of the impresion his Jesus would save him at the last minute of his life like the thief crucified along with his Christ.

Christianity is the perfect way to hell.

Well spoken.

Christianity is a religion founded by MAN and not GOD.

If hell was real ( we know it is a MYTH ) , 99.999% of Christians would have gone there.

malvisguy212:
do you think the ten commandments is the Choices of 10 men ? its a matter of choice ? Why is the choices of many superior to the choices of a few? A choice may be unpopular, but that does not make it any less valid
than the choices that are shared by many. Many ancient societies saw no problem with practicing human sacrifices. If we follow this philosophy and say that morality is determined by the majority in society, then we must acknowledge that at one time human sacrifice was morally right. frosbel , you are something els. hatred run in your vain. your rebellion can last for long but it will not last forever .

My forefathers were living righteous lives before the 10 commandments were written.

They had the moral codes engraved on their hearts.

We do not need your fictional religion to make the right choice

How do your life looks like without Jesus, anyways I'll like to know who programmed right or wrong in our DNA. BTW do you think people living carelessly and in immorality are doing well while they have Jesus in 'em, light and darkness doesn't stay together. peace

frosbel2:


Well spoken.

Christianity is a religion founded by MAN and not GOD.

If hell was real ( we know it is a MYTH ) , 99.999% of Christians would have gone there.

Hell is real and a repented sinner gladden God's however, Christian tries to live a good life with the concept of sin, fall, repentance, mercy and forgiveness and the power to not be a slave to sin is what keeps a Christian a Christian. Christianity is like a walking body in Christ

frosbel2:


My forefathers were living righteous lives before the 10 commandments were written.

They had the moral codes engraved on their hearts.

We do not need your fictional religion to make the right choice

the killing of twins is a right choice , Perhaps human sacrifice is the right choice .

Morals are built into us as human beings, we know right from wrong because it is programmed into our DNA. It is our choice to do bad or good and each choice we make , makes it easier the next time to repeat the same decision, i.e evil decisions leads to more evil while good decisions lead to more good.
Nobody needs Jesus or Religion to be GOOD or remain BAD.
Its a matter of CHOICE !!

But what has morals to do with righteousness?

False religions claiming Christians is Satan's key to blindfold many from knowing the truth about the significance of Christ {2 Corinthians 4:4} without Jesus no man will be saved!

From Abel to John the baptist were DECLARED righteous because they have qualified for the second stage of the salvation process.

The first stage is how people lived their lives either based on the laws given to the Israelites: this works for those that knew God's laws given to the Israelites through Moses so anyone faithful to that law will be given a Visa to enter the second stage of Salvation plan.
There are many people from different nations who never heard about the God of Israel but they lived by conscience so they also have the Visa to enter the second stage of Salvation plan. These two are called the RIGHTEOUS and UNRIGHTEOUS! Act 24:15

The second stage of Salvation plan has to do with 1,000 years of intense teaching globally when there won't be any distraction by false religions orchestrated by Satan and his agents by that time only Christianity will be allowed on planet earth and people living that time won't get sick, grow old nor die for 1,000 years but whoever refuse to accept Christianity will only live for a hundred years and die as a youth! Isaiah 65:20

So you need a free home Bible study with the true Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses) we will help you if you're willing.
Nobody can gain everlasting life without the righteousness that's in Christ Jesus!

■ God himself built morals into our DNA, we make the choices.....and get rewarded for our decisions. Nothing to do with your WHITE MYTHICAL JESUS or HESUS, lol. Also, thanks for your 'CHRIST-LIKE' response. He will be very proud of you.

1. Imagine confusing moral standards of men with God's standard of righteousness.

■ Apostasy is a funny state, we have Islamic apostates, Christian apostates, Hindu apostates and even atheist apostates

1. But has any of that to do with God?

Teach!

Totally agree with OP here, nobody needs Jesus and foreign extremist ideologies to be righteous/virtuous

Our parents/guardians installed these standards into our pysche and becomes a fabric in one’s understanding, outside of our general upbringing, there really doesn’t need a dude standing round the block telling us this, that or the other for one to realise the need to uphold virtues as one’s standard.

Our parents/guardians, siblings, elders and heroes already educated us in these standard to a perfection.

Amujale:
■ Totally agree with OP here, nobody needs Jesus and foreign extremist ideologies to be righteous/virtuous

RIghteousness is not virtuousness though! Righteousness is based on works as defined by a standard whereas virtuousness has more to do with morality which people can have different individual ideas of.

Kobojunkie:
RIghteousness is not virtuousness though! Righteousness is based on works as defined by a standard whereas virtuousness has more to do with morality which people can have different individual ideas of.

True, I suppose one was to pick or choose, I concede to the fact that righteousness and virtuousness don’t quite mean the same thing.

I suppose to have added ‘or’ instead of the ‘forward sash’ would’ve been more reader-friendly. Would that have conveyed the point correctly? Not quite.

These are two high calibre conflicting school of thoughts, is it ‘righteousness’ or “virtuousness” ?

That has alway been the question, an old aged question at that, argument that keeps gathering momentum on a daily basis.

For me, it’s always Virtuousness over everything, however, I’m not lost to the points put across by the advocates of, “for them, it’s Righteousness that they sought”.

Virtuousness is always a nice and fun quality to have.

I hope that clears that up.

Amujale:
■ True, I suppose one was to pick or choose, I concede to the fact that righteousness and virtuousness don’t quite mean the same thing. I suppose to have added ‘or’ instead of the ‘forward sash’ would’ve been more reader-friendly. Would that have conveyed the point correctly? Not quite. These are two high calibre conflicting school of thoughts, is it ‘righteousness’ or “virtuousness” ? That has alway been the question, an old aged question at that, argument that keeps gathering momentum on a daily basis. For me, it’s always Virtuousness over everything, however, I’m not lost to the points put across by the advocates of, “for them, it’s Righteousness that they sought”. Virtuousness is always a nice and fun quality to have. I hope that clears that up.

In my opinion, it all depends on the goal one has set for self. Virtuousness has to do with meeting with one's private ideas as regards morality. Such an achievement may not hold tangible value as far as the next man or even society itself as it is born of selfish leaning ideas in the case of the individual. Righteousness on the other hand has more to do with doing works that directly impact, meaningfully, the lives of others. While a virtuous man might also be a stingy man, a righteous man reaches beyond himself to help others around him.

Kobojunkie:
In my opinion, it all depends on the goal one has set for self. Virtuousness has to do with meeting with one's private ideas as regards morality. Such an achievement may not hold tangible value as far as the next man or even society itself as it is born of selfish leaning ideas in the case of the individual. Righteousness on the other hand has more to do with doing works that directly impact, meaningfully, the lives of others. While a virtuous man might also be a stingy man, a righteous man reaches beyond himself to help others around him.

Indeed, now you see the reasoning the text was delivered that way, that way, these arguments wouldn’t be necessary.

Virtuousness is something one will attain, righteousness is something one earns. For instance, using your analogy, a wealthy and or powerful person could easily pass as righteous person, the same can’t be said for those who aim to attain virtuousness.

It doesn’t matter how powerful or rich one may be, it’s either one is virtuous or they aren’t. It’s a level one must attain before being qualified as such, and it isn’t anyone qualifying one as such, as much as one’s deeds and actions that are and will.

Amujale:
■ Indeed, now you see the reasoning the text was delivered that way, that way, these arguments wouldn’t be necessary. Virtuousness is something one will attain, righteousness is something one earns. For instance, using your analogy, a wealthy and or powerful person could easily pass as righteous person, the same can’t be said for those who aim to attain virtuousness.
■ It doesn’t matter how powerful or rich one may be, it’s either one is virtuous or they aren’t. It’s a level one must attain before being qualified as such, and it isn’t anyone qualifying one as such, as much as one’s deeds and actions that are and will.

1. Completely disagree! In Nigeria, for example, you will find more generous poor people than you would generous rich people, so it is wrong to assume that wealth has anything to do with righteousness or impacts one's righteousness. It does not take wealth to positively impact the lives of others.

2. Again, pay attention to the fact that virtue is defined by the individual, and not necessarily by groups or people. Virtue to a porn star or a gigolo may not be the same as the standard of virtue held by our grandmothers but it is virtue nonetheless. My standard of virtue means
and holds no real value to you if you do not subscribe to the same as I do. It typically only comes into focus when a relationship is to be forged otherwise, it is void.

P.S. There is a need to stress that this only applies outside of the standards set by God in scripture.

Kobojunkie:
In my opinion, it all depends on the goal one has set for self. Virtuousness has to do with meeting with one's private ideas as regards morality. Such an achievement may not hold tangible value as far as the next man or even society itself as it is born of selfish leaning ideas in the case of the individual. Righteousness on the other hand has more to do with doing works that directly impact, meaningfully, the lives of others. While a virtuous man might also be a stingy man, a righteous man reaches beyond himself to help others around him.

Wielded correctly, Righteousness and Virtuousness are both great tools for our betterment.

Amujale:
■ Wielded correctly, Righteousness and Virtuousness are both great tools for our betterment.

Benefits to whom though? Righteousness is the only tool that can be considered of real benefit to society. The other, not so much. Look at Nigeria to see this. Many in the society, from the SUs to the Muslims claim to be virtuous but all that amounts to zilch in terms of real benefits to anyone in the country; not even their kids benefit from all that moral nonsense.

[quote author=Kobojunkie post=123284627]…to the fact that virtue is defined by the individual.

That’s untrue.

It’s seems to me, you’re missing the point.

Virtue
•behaviour showing high moral standards.

Virtues aren’t supposed to be defined by the individual.

Benevolence is a virtue, Propriety is a virtue, Wisdom is a virtue, trustworthiness, righteousness these are deemed virtues.

Virtuousness allows the bearer to tick these boxes, a level of attainment.

Amujale:
…to the fact that virtue is defined by the individual. That’s untrue. It’s seems to me, you’re missing the point.
Virtue • behaviour showing high moral standards.
Virtues aren’t supposed to be defined by the individual.
Benevolence is a virtue, Propriety is a virtue, Wisdom is a virtue, trustworthiness, righteousness these are deemed virtues.
Virtuousness allows the bearer to tick these boxes, a level of attainment.

Who defines the so-called high moral standard? By whose or what measure are these moral standards declared as high or low?

Kobojunkie:
It does not take wealth to positively impact the lives of [/i]

That’s not what was said, the point was that it easier for a powerful and or wealthy person to pass as being righteous than it is to pass as virtuous.

Another point construed

Kobojunkie:
Who defines the so-called high moral standard? By whose or what measure are these moral standards declared as high or low?

What’s your point.

Define virtue.

You cannot seem to accept when you get things wrong

It seems you’re the one not paying attention, when it’s actually free.

Amujale:
■ That’s not what was said, the point was that it easier for a powerful and or wealthy person to pass as being righteous than it is to pass as virtuous. Another point construed

I don't agree with that either.

Amujale:
■ What’s your point. Define virtue. You cannot seem to accept when you get things wrong It seems you’re the one not paying attention, when it’s actually free.

The dictionary definition of virtue which you provided earlier works as far as a definition is concerned.

However, my question was, who defines the standard itself? For you or for me? I don't subscribe to the same standard of virtue that you hold to. And what you consider a high moral standard may be nothing to me.

Kobojunkie:
I don't agree with that either.

Your agreement or non agreement to the facts doesn’t make it change.

Amujale:
■ Your agreement or non agreement to the facts doesn’t make it change.

Open your mind and consider what I have said so far. We all come from different homes packing different standards as far as virtue is concerned. Then you have other standards at the traditional, cultural, peer, and even career levels. There are standards of virtue every where you look or turn. So who determines which one is high and which one is low? Who determines if what you consider high should be high for me as well or not? Open your mind!

Kobojunkie:
The dictionary definition of virtue which you provided earlier works as far as a definition is concerned.

However, my question was, who defines the standard itself? For you or for me? I don't subscribe to the same standard of virtue that you hold to. And what you consider a high moral standard may be nothing to me.

Virtues aren’t something one does or doesn’t subscribe to, but levels to attain.

I’m amazed that you seem unaware of these kind of things.