I’m curious, what if that kid turns out to be atheist? Would the same amount of morality apply to his birth as it would a Christian’s?
And yet the passage I quoted seems to pretty directly state the opposite. There isn’t any real ambiguity in it, and Jesus doesn’t seem to be speaking metaphorically.
He clearly states: The two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.
Then: The greatest love you can have is to lay down your life for a friend.
I don’t see much wiggle-room here - the answer to the OP’s question about the “most moral act possible”, from a Christian perspective, is to lay down your life to save another person’s (and the answer to the “who is your neighbor” question is also made plain by the story of the Good Samaritan).
Also, could you please cite the “Jesus said you have to die to live” part - it sounds familiar but the only references I can find are to Paul, not to Jesus.
I believe you are making a leap which is not there and does not follow the other scriptures. Jesus as God undoubtedly had the greatest Love for His friends (us) and laid down His physical life for the exchange for our eternal life.
We are called to follow Jesus, the possible sacrifice of our physical life for the eternal life of another is our greatest act of Love. Note the scriptures do not say The greatest love you can have is to lay down your life *for the life *of a friend, but just for a friend.
This is what many people who are called by God need to do. Some may be martyrs, though many just place themselves in a situation that seems certain of death yet they are protected by God.
One of the few passages across all 4 gospels:
[QUOTE=Matthew 16:25]
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
[/QUOTE]
Also in Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, John 12:25
And a case can be made for similar in Revelation, which is also quoting Jesus.
Also you have the take up your cross and follow Jesus quote in 3 out of the 4 gospels.
Also note that Jesus did not come to save Laserth <sp>, but allowed him to die and Jesus raised him from the grave, saving a life is not that important if one has the power to raise the dead, and raising of the dead is a power Jesus gave to us. Because Jesus came after the death, though there was apparently time to come before, it shows that saving a physical life may not be the best thing.
Thank you for the reference.
I’m not sure how else to interpret John 15:13 than as “laying down your life for the life of a friend”, but I guess if you prefer to think of it as “laying down your life to save a friend’s soul” that’s no skin off my back.
It’s still a huge leap from “the greatest moral act is to die to save someone’s soul” (assuming that’s even a correct interpretation) to “the greatest moral act is conception”. All your doing by conceiving is creating another soul that may be damned.
Oh, and as for the Matthew quote, I now remember why I never made a point of remembering it - I find it impenetrable hokum (what is that final “it” even referring to…). Might as well be a Zen koan. 
The only reasonably meaningful interpretation is a combination of the banal and the woowoo - “If you think the most important thing is your own life you’re doomed, because you’re going to die”. Well, no shit Jesus. Followed by “but if you die for me (as a martyr, I guess) then you’ll get some sweet digs in heaven” - pretty standard religion-as-undefined-future-reward stuff.
On a more serious note than my previous posts, I think conception shouldn’t be necessarily regarded as a moral act. The context of this argument is the premise that there is such a thing as a soul and also that there is an existence for souls outside of the mortal realm.
If souls are eternal, then they already existed in the outer realm before conception. The act of conception just trapped a soul in a physical body for the length of a mortal lifetime. And even if souls are created by the act of conception, then there’s still the issue of the consequences to a soul of having a mortal existence.
The premise of most religions is that the acts of a mortal lifetime have an effect on the soul’s condition after death. Some acts can theoretically improve a soul’s existence but other acts can harm the soul.
So regardless of whether you favor the trapping or creation theory, is it moral to place a soul in a human body with the knowledge that you’re placing that soul in a perilous position? If that soul goes on to experience damnation, isn’t it partly your responsibility for putting it on that path? Wouldn’t that damned soul have been better off if you hadn’t caused it to be born?
That’s pretty much how I feel. Especially when it really was a struggle to us, medically, to have a baby.
Now, for the purposes of this thread, that doesn’t mean I think there is any moral aspect to it. But to me it still was an amazing thing, and I get annoyed by those who say that it’s not a big deal, it’s as common as fucking. Believe me, we fuck a LOT, and it never created a child before.
FWIW here is the quote from the NIV
[QUOTE=John 15:13]
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
[/QUOTE]
I do have a issue with the premise of murder is the greatest immoral act, which it clearly is not. Murder can be forgiven in this life (King David’s murder of Uriah, forgiven by the Lord through Nathan), the unpardonable sin however cannot be forgiven in this age or the age to come (from Jesus), so that would be a greater immoral act and since it is the only unforgivable sin, it is the greatest immoral act.
As such I state that conception, or childbearing is the opposite of death and murder, in a codependent ying/yang sense, and also based on multiple scripture reference of the place we come from (conception) is the same place we return to (death), this for one given by God to Adam for his sin (in Gen 3)
Wasn’t the “unpardonable sin” blaspheming the Holy Spirit? So the “converse” of that would be glorifying or spreading the Holy Spirit? So I guess that would argue that the greatest moral act is evangelizing (which also ties in with your interpretation of John 15:13).
Guess it’s a good thing I’m an atheist now, because that result certainly doesn’t mesh with my intuitive morality.
Yes
Actually I’d say no, since the greatest act of Love is clearly defined is to lay down one’s life for friends and therefor is not evangelizing by definition. So John 15:13 would be the opposite of the unpardonable sin. Though the act of giving one’s life for a friend in John 15:13 may very will be evangelistic in nature, it is not necessarily so.
Here is the quote from Revelation I mentioned, which is also a quote of Jesus:
[QUOTE=Revelation 2:10]
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.
[/QUOTE]
That just proves that the opposite act is not necessarily the inverse morality.
Well committing the greatest act of Love does glorify the Holy Spirit, so in that respect they are opposite of the greatest sin.
Jas09 I have been thinking about what you stated and it is possibly that the greatest act of Love includes evangelism, but it may take a God to make that happen.
If you will follow this example:
You and your friend live in a atheistic society. Your friend moves to a African village and plans to live with the indigenous people. After your friend moves you find God and wish to tell your friend. You travel in search of your friend and die in the process.
It appears that you have died for your friend, yet no apparent envangelation took place. And for the most part, if there is no god that would be the end of it. But if there is a God, and God looks at your heart and basically follows the teachings of Jesus about God, then God will make your effort good, He has to. So it isn’t the end of the story.
Perhaps your friend will find your body one day, with a bible in his possession. And your friend starts reading it, then this is evangelism.
So I recant my above statement and that it is possible that the greatest act of Love always include evangelism.
Good grief.
What does this have to do with conceiving a child?
I disagree with the OP.
The most moral act possible = dieing for one’s friends, scripturally defined as the greatest act of Love
The opposite would be the least moral act possible = Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, scripturally defined as unforgivable in this age and the age to come
Murder is scripturally forgivable in this life, so it is not the greatest immoral act.
However death, including death through murder has a counterpart in the feminine and that is childbearing and I would say that childbearing is the ‘opposite’ of murder.
I apologize-I was spot-reading while between clients at the food pantry. Still and all, wouldn’t the greatest moral act of all depend on what one’s morals are in the first place? Let’s say you have a psychological need to be a martyr. If you laid down your life for another then it would be nothing more that an act of self-satisfaction.
Even if you do NOT have a martyr complex it would be an act of self-satisfaction. Everything is. There is no such thing as true altruism. Each and every decision a human makes is 100% selfish. Everything ever one of us will ever do is 100% selfish.
Jump in front of a bus to save a kid’s life, knowing that you will certainly die? 100% selfish. You do it because you felt it was the right thing–FOR YOU–to do at the time. You did it to satisfy your own needs, which is all any of us ever do.
Give every penny of a $150 million lottery prize to the Salvation Army?
100% selfish.
Kill yourself?
100% selfish.
Continue to live?
100% selfish.
Etc., etc. The trick to understanding this is to relax and think a moment. Do not let yourself get caught up in all of the negative baggage that is attached by custom and usage to the concept of ‘selfishness’.
I stress ‘concept’ because I know people can be pedantic and manage to lose ideas in the precise “laws” of dictionary pronouncements. Maybe ‘selfish’ is not the best word here–maybe “self-serving” or “self-seeking” would be better. My point is that intentional altruism does not exist.
As far as the subject of this thread–certainly having children is a totally self-serving or selfish act.
Defining everything as “selfish” just renders the word “selfish” useless. Clearly, there are people who care nothing for others, and there are people who care a great deal about others; with what words do you distinguish between the two if you’ve defined “selfish” to apply to all human behavior? This person is selfish, while that person is generous is a useful distinction to make.
My take on it:
To some extent we can define our own morality. But I do believe that any morality except for Love God, Love your neighbor will fail the person (soul) eventually.
There is also a absolute morality, that of Love, all moralities will eventually become this single one, till then we get what we have, different and sometimes opposed moralities.
In the case above, if the person does it for Love, it will lead to glorification of God, if for any other reason then Love then as you put it ‘self satisfaction’. This ‘self satisfaction’ however will be found not to be satisfying at all, but will be used as learning process for that soul of what they don’t want as their morality, and the soul will search for a new morality.
This brings up the question is any morality besides Love God/Love neighbors is wrong or bad. Ultimately I believe no, no person’s morality is actually bad as long as the soul learns the correct morality eventually, which I personally believe all will learn. So the person’s individual morality is correct as a learning tool.
Yes people who have bad morals produce pain in the world for others, and that really sucks, but that pain will eventually come back to them, this is what is sometimes called karma.
SO yes you can define the greatest moral act as conception, the greatest immoral act as murder, plug that into your life and let it run, see how it goes.
I did admit that perhaps self-serving is a better term. But I think your objection would still stand.
I do not see all behaviors as zero-sum situations where any action is either totally self-serving or totally generous. Almost all actions are both.
If I give a million dollars to a needy charity, that action is generous and self-serving at the same time. It is generous to the charity and that action would likely be seen by others as very generous.
But my personal motivation behind the gift was (mostly sub-consciously, I would assume) completely self-serving. As a living organism I am hard-wired to react to each fork I encounter in the decision-tree of life in the way that I have calculated will best serve my self-interest.