Who's More Moral?

Then a Christian does not have to live by a moral code but if he chooses to do so, he is more moral than an athiest? I'm just trying to understand your position.Seriously, what's the question here. Who's more moral? Is this really asking about performance?From the OP: Seems to me that the OP is asking for a comparison of the moral requirements of each group. However, most Christians would have to say that whatever God told them to do would be moral.If God told you to set fire to an orphanage and keep the children in it as it burned down, would that be a moral act (I'm assuming you would obey your God)? Would refusing to do it be an immoral act? You can't say God wouldn't tell you to do that. He has a track record that is in black and white.ABE What does THAT mean and how do I know if it happened to me?Edited by LinearAq, : Added off-topic question.

Then this is about performance rather than the quality of the moral rules for each group.
So what does your conscience tell you to do when you find out that your heretofore loveless brother John announces his impending marriage to George?
What would the reactions of Rev. Fred Phelps to this announcement tell us about the urgings of his conscience?
Pat Robertson?
Dr. James Dobson?If God is the author of the conscience, why are the reactions of these conscience-controlled individuals so disparate.Mostly, how does "following our conscience" relate to who is more moral? What is the yardstick by which we measure this morality?

The standards don't change just because the person that is supposed to follow them fails to do so.
If we make the judgement of morals (better or worse) about performance, then there is no way to make a judgement.If my personal moral standards determined by the code that "Get what I want regardless of the consequences to others", then my performance in relation to those standards would probably be very highly rated. In fact, I would probably follow my stated moral standards all the time. However, I doubt that you would consider my morals "better" than a devout Christian's, despite his occasional failures to meet his moral standards.
Of course one could make the case that everyone always follows their personal moral standard regardless of the moral standards to which they claim adherence. That would place us on level ground with no real better or worse.From my point of view the only way to judge better or worse morals is to judge the moral standards claimed by each group. But what is the yardstick of judgement? God?..which God? The amount of good affected on other people? Then we need a standard of good.What is that standard?....Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
But I want to go to heaven and, according to Paul, I can't go to heaven if I unrepentantly fornicate. So, I should try to enact laws that keep others from unrepentantly fornicating so they can go to heaven.
But you must be a Christian (insert your definition of that here) to go to heaven. I would want to be exposed only to those things that help me be a good Christian despite myself so I think we should remove other influences from the public eye so everyone can become a Christian despite themselves. Wouldn't that be for the greater good?
Really, this life is short...all your pleasures and freedoms in this life SHOULD be forced to be subordinate to the greater good of eternity in heaven.I can get more absurd if you like.The point being that we judge the morals of others based upon our own moral standards and our moral standards appear to be, for the most part, formed by the society and family we live with. Perhaps society's standards are the only ones that can act as the yardstick.