She is choosing to associate with a racist in either case. (If it helps, feel free to treat Jesus/Christianity as your potential wife's childhood friend.)

It doesn't matter if it's a new concept (it's not). It matters if it's an accurate one (and again, it's not).

I probably wouldn't show up at either party (depending on the fundamentalist Christian). However, that would be a function of what you said next, i.e. that I would be getting judged, and this would potentially make my life more unpleasant/difficult.

Of course. Does that mean it's accurate way to judge someone? Nope.

It's irrelevant whether or not it's an accurate way to judge someone, because the question is about morality, and whether your passive acceptance of another's beliefs has any moral culpability (it does).

Sure, and I said as much.

I agree.

The message that should be sent is that I'm willing to share in their company...and that's it.

No. (Or more accurately, it shouldn't.)

Sure, it's going to have an effect. But basing all my actions on the misapplied moral judgements of my neighbor is a poor way to live your life. In other words, if my neighbor thinks eating Skittles means I support slavery doesn't mean I should have to stop eating Skittles.

I'd say that, generally, you're more likely to change their views as their friend. Based on anecdotal evidence, of course.

You still haven't explained how being a Christian means you "accept" the evil acts sometimes associated with other Christians.

Define "passive acceptance", and please explain how are you determining the moral goodness/badness of an act?

[I have to understand how you're using these terms if we're going to continue.]

I'm going to go with this:

pas·sive [pas-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling.

And this

Culpability descends from the Latin concept of fault (culpa). The concept of culpability is intimately tied up with notions of agency, freedom, and free will. All are commonly held to be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for culpability.
In explanations and predictions of human action and inaction, culpability is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible. Culpability marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held responsible and natural evil, like earthquakes, for which no one can be held responsible.

So is passive acceptance (failing to react affirmatively or negatively) to an input (anothers moral actions) have a moral consideration of its own?

It's not about your neighbors moral actions, it's about your own. And what moral considerations one has to consider for oneself, when choosing to be in the company of the immoral.



Well there you go.

I don't think its about accepting the evil acts of other Christians, it's about accepting the evil in the teachings of Christianity, and accepting the evil that has come and continues to come about due to the existence of religion.

Part of the primary message Christians have for the world is that everyone is guilty of sin. We are not born "good". This idea is totally foreign to the fallen nature. The world judges on the curve - my good deeds outweigh my bad deeds, I'm not as bad as Hitler, etc. Christianity says God judges on the basis of perfection ("You must be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect") -if you lust for a woman you are as guilty as if you had committed adultery, if you hate someone you are as guilty as if you had murdered him. This message is not welcomed by the world.

I think OP is being too black/white. Christianity, while certainly full of immoral/evil/not very nice people who do bad things, is not, in and of itself, an evil or even bad institution.

One could argue that the teachings of Jesus are mostly, if not, completely, good, just, and for the betterment of humanity.

It's only when imperfect people decide to use Christianity - or any religion - for their own purposes that the tenets of that religion might be used for immoral purposes.

Are there certain tenets of Christianity that I disagree with? Sure - but that doesn't make it evil.

Being a Christian might mean someone is evil. But it might also mean that person is moral and just. Or just human and capable of bad deeds, like most of us are.

"Love thy neighbor" is certainly not an ideal that is unique to Christianity, but at least most Christians are trying to be moral, ethical people. Are they sometimes mislead, prejudicial, and ignorant? Yes. But that is not unique to Christianity, either.

For the record, I'm about as anti-religion as you can get. But I don't immediately assume a follower of Christ - or Muhammad or Buddha - to be evil. We just have different views and we can usually come to some kind of common agreement on most things.

Again though, I disagree that can say someone is passively accepting an act by mere function of their association with someone who committed said act.

I don't think there are any moral considerations that aren't based on the misapplied moral judgements of my neighbors when choosing to be in the company of the immoral.

Glad I could help.

The way you're using "accept" here is pretty disingenuous and is in no way an accurate representation of a typical Christian's view on evil as it relates to their religion.

Op says that "morality shouldn't come from willful ignorance."

Op dodged my other questions.

But this quoted post answers mine and his. This is very well phrased and should pacify the op's hackneyed attack.

This seems somewhat diluted from the original message of Yeshua HaMashiach. Simply, the Ruach HaKodesh ( =Spirit of Truth ) convicts the world of sin.

Unfortunately, Roman Catholicism is so far from what Yeshua and his talmidim="disciples" actually taught, the "Church of Roman-ism" may as well be considered apostate. Sects of Protestantism are often not much better; at least the Orthodox branch are on the "correct" side of the filioque clause and many members fast regularly on the days according to the Didache ("Apostles Teaching" ). Rather than hold to any institutional statement of beliefs, it's better to stick close to Yeshua's intended message.

Closer to what Yeshua said about the world is that not only is the world guilty of sin, but those that are of the world has Hasatan ("Satan") as their father and cannot bear the truth of Yeshua's words. Unless a person repents, that person is in danger of eternal damnation; however, if that person repents and trusts in and follows the words of Yeshua as the Messiah, he/she will have eternal life.

Not only is virtually every human being is guilty of "sin", but "totally depraved". Almost any mature human being can readily see that by simply recording all of one's actions and thoughts for just a week and examining the record for himself/herself; or bring the record to a tzaddik ( = a "righteous person" ) to see how really far off the mark from perfection a human being is. Quite apt is the passage: "For G-d so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. G-d did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of G-d. This is the verdict: that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in G-d."

About so-called "righteous deeds" performed without following the will of "G-d", Isaiah 64:6 ( referring to Israelites that strayed away from Hashem = "G-d") seems dead on the mark: all these "righteous deeds" are nothing but "filthy rags" and technically, the term literally means menstrual cloth/rag. Without trusting in Yeshua/YHWH Elohim, a human being is incapable of doing anything truly good; what seems "good" to fallen humanity can be "abominable" to the Holy One of Israel. Without repentance, a human being effectively receives the same destination as Hitler; after all, what can the perfectly good Creator do with a spiritual being who "sins"? Here is what Paul Washer stated about unrepentant human beings without "G-d": "You've done nothing but sin!"

I like what you've posted concerning perfection. Just as an added thought: Cain slew Abel because evil hates righteousness; the world, spiritually dead in sin, hates those who live in righteousness.

There is something important Yeshua spoke of that should not be omitted: one ought to pray for one's human enemies, wishing the very best for them, even to the extent that they will hopefully become sons and daughters of the Living "G-d".

Ya, but being unwelcome or obnoxious is not the same as being evil. Westboro Baptist: Evil. The rest of you: not even close.

Of course, my job isn't to get you to think I'm evil. It's to get you to think that YOU'RE evil. If that is obnoxious to you then at least I'm in the ballpark.

I'm going to ask for some of the other Christians to chime in here, because your phrasing seems rather...unique. I don't think (according to Christian theology) that because humans are sinful dictates that they are evil.

His phrasing doesn't seem unique to me on that point, I seem to remember some scripture that talks about the depravity and, maybe more to the point, the "wickedness" of unregenerate men. Additionally I remember some references to every desire in mans heart being for evil.

Oh yes, of course. Standard operating procedure really. I just thought your initial response to this statement:

to the effect that you wouldn't feel you had done your job as a Christian if an atheist didn't feel this way about you was an unusual line to toe. It seems after further conversation though that you aren't suggesting what I thought you were.

Sure, I would agree. However, I feel there's quite the step upwards from being sinful, or wicked, or even having evil desires, to actually *being* evil.

Even when I was a Christian reflecting on my "sin nature" prior to becoming a Christian I generally accepted the idea that I was once "evil" and an "enemy to God". I certainly acknowledged that my kind of evil manifested itself differently than a murderer, rapist, etc. and that they were (if possible) more "evil" than myself, but I also generally accepted that the distinctions in types of evil were human distinctions (though I was certain God could see the difference too) and that anyone who was living outside of a relationship with Christ was, in God's view, all pretty much equal. It seemed to me that the definition of evil was any thing opposed to God.

I think the standard Christian line would be that we have all sinned and fallen short and that therefore we are all evil. Also that the distinction between degrees of evil was irrelevant on God's view.

I don't think its fair to say all humans are evil full stop. This is oversimplifying human nature in its current state. All humans are made in the image of God. Being made in the image of God by default gives us some inherent "goodness". I will avoid being specific here because it will get sticky. Conversely, all humans live with the sin nature since the fall of man. Therefore all humans have some inherent "badness".

It gets more complicated when you add Christianity and being filled with the Holy Spirit so we can leave that out for now.

All people are born with a propensity and tendency toward evil. When I say evil here I don't mean mass murder. I am referring to evil as compared to God's perfection and holiness. We need to teach our kids from toddlers to share, no one needs to teach their kids to be selfish. I would consider even the selfishness of a toddler to be evidence of the sin nature.

edit: In regards to word choice it may be more accurate to say people are sinful rather than evil. Without doing any intensive word study here it seems evil may be too strong of a term. I think when people use strong words like "evil" it is more about comparing our own moral state to God's holiness. How good or bad we are is all relative in who we compare ourselves too. Therefore even an average Joe nice guy may be considered evil when lined up next to God's holiness. I am not saying "evil" is the best word choice but just trying to explain why some people may opt for such strong language

Thanks Dominic for saving me the keystrokes. Really want to +1 this.
OP what parts of Christianity do you find offensive?

I will touch on the most controversial issues here:

1. Homosexuality
2. Abortion

Standard Christian view is that homosexuality and abortion are wrong. But what else does Christianity teach? Christ instructs us not to judge other lest we ourselves be judged. In addition, Christ instructs us to love our enemies.

Therefore if you are dealing with "real" Christians they should be non-judgemental and they should be loving even if you are living a horrible/sinful life according to them.

I'll second that. Any religious posters or anyone who shows respect for the beliefs of others or any sense of morality is immediately trolled on here. I gave up some time ago.

But this is a very different question from the OP. In the OP you asked if it was immoral to associate with Christians because you feel Christianity is immoral. Now you are asking whether you should associate with Christians because there are people who think Christianity is immoral and those people may judge you for your association.

This is simple. There may be people who judge you for associating with Christians. If their opinion of you is more important to you than the association you will have to forego, then forego it. If not, don't. Problem solved. Your feelings about Christianity yourself actually do not enter into the problem. After all, you have stated that the person is a friend. Clearly their opinions do not bother you deeply enough to end the friendship. It is only how concerned you are about the opinions of other people who might dislike Christianity.

I think it's a little nuanced. Repentance is central to Christianity, and repentance requires an awareness of our own shortcomings and faults. I could have written "evil" instead of either of those words and I don't think it would be entirely wrong. But the nuance is in writing that "they are evil". Christians do not teach that humans are by nature evil, but rather by nature images of God. So there is a distinction in Christian metaphysics between the essential nature of a human being and the sinful nature of humans "in practice", however you end up defining that. This is fairly clear in all of the NT passages that distinguish between the "spirit" and the "flesh".

Obviously there is a lot more that could be written about all of that but since it's not strictly on topic I guess I'll leave it at that.

The bolded is extremely important and I am quite pleased you mentioned this. Although almost all human beings are "sinful", there is a capacity for each of them to partake in the "divine nature" by overcoming the world/"flesh"/sin through the indwelling of the Spirit of "G-d". The dictionary definition of "evil" is quite strong and often implies profound immorality/wickedness/depravity, but some theists would argue that is still the case when measured against the perfection of "G-d" ( the words of Isaiah come to mind ).

Privatio boni, that evil is the lack of good, is probably the most widely held view amongst Catholics at least. From St. Augustine:

Chapter 11.—What is Called Evil in the Universe is But the Absence of Good.And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present—namely, the diseases and wounds—go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils—that is, privations of the good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else.

Chapter 12.—All Beings Were Made Good, But Not Being Made Perfectly Good, are Liable to Corruption.All things that exist, therefore, seeing that the Creator of them all is supremely good, are themselves good. But because they are not, like their Creator, supremely and unchangeably good, their good may be diminished and increased. But for good to be diminished is an evil, although, however much it may be diminished, it is necessary, if the being is to continue, that some good should remain to constitute the being. For however small or of whatever kind the being may be, the good which makes it a being cannot be destroyed without destroying the being itself. An uncorrupted nature is justly held in esteem. But if, still further, it be incorruptible, it is undoubtedly considered of still higher value. When it is corrupted, however, its corruption is an evil, because it is deprived of some sort of good. For if it be deprived of no good, it receives no injury; but it does receive injury, therefore it is deprived of good. Therefore, so long as a being is in process of corruption, there is in it some good of which it is being deprived; and if a part of the being should remain which cannot be corrupted, this will certainly be an incorruptible being, and accordingly the process of corruption will result in the manifestation of this great good. But if it do not cease to be corrupted, neither can it cease to possess good of which corruption may deprive it. But if it should be thoroughly and completely consumed by corruption, there will then be no good left, because there will be no being. Wherefore corruption can consume the good only by consuming the being. Every being, therefore, is a good; a great good, if it can not be corrupted; a little good, if it can: but in any case, only the foolish or ignorant will deny that it is a good. And if it be wholly consumed by corruption, then the corruption itself must cease to exist, as there is no being left in which it can dwell.

Chapter 13.—There Can Be No Evil Where There is No Good; And an Evil Man is an Evil Good.Accordingly, there is nothing of what we call evil, if there be nothing good. But a good which is wholly without evil is a perfect good. A good, on the other hand, which contains evil is a faulty or imperfect good; and there can be no evil where there is no good. From all this we arrive at the curious result: that since every being, so far as it is a being, is good, when we say that a faulty being is an evil being, we just seem to say that what is good is evil, and that nothing but what is good can be evil, seeing that every being is good, and that no evil can exist except in a being. Nothing, then, can be evil except something which is good. And although this, when stated, seems to be a contradiction, yet the strictness of reasoning leaves us no escape from the conclusion. We must, however, beware of incurring the prophetic condemnation: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.”1104 And yet our Lord says: “An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil.”1105 Now, what is evil man but an evil being? for a man is a being. Now, if a man is a good thing because he is a being, what is an evil man but an evil good? Yet, when we accurately distinguish these two things, we find that it is not because he is a man that he is an evil, or because he is wicked that he is a good; but that he is a good because he is a man, and an evil because he is wicked. Whoever, then, says, “To be a man is an evil,” or, “To be wicked is a good,” falls under the prophetic denunciation: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil!” For he condemns the work of God, which is the man, and praises the defect of man, which is the wickedness. Therefore every being, even if it be a defective one, in so far as it is a being is good, and in so far as it is defective is evil.