Actually there WAS a place for bush in the thread if you would read his response. Bush claims he is a christian and is always talking about god and faith. I thought Rakk's Response was very appropriate to the Question.

I think they all use the same tool with a different name and offer equal chance for morality and immorality.

Not just Christians mind, otherwise, I feel the same way.
I only pick on you because I expect you to ask and answer the questions that I know you've asked and answered before. I will be honest and say that I don't believe current quality of this site would result is such questions otherwise.

Thank you for humoring me.

Daisym provides a venue and I appreciate it.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Again, you're equating morality to Christianity, insisting that Christians judge others based on their belief of God. The sin of disbelief is a sin against God, not one's fellowman and definitely not for men to judge. It also has nothing to do with morality though I'm sure there are some "Christians" that would beg to differ. As a born-again believer, I know that Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." I'm not without sin so I refuse to judge for not believing.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

That's an interesting question, daisym. One worth thinking about some more, so I might have something more intelligent to say later. But a couple thoughts did come to mind.

First, did you perhaps mean to ask "without your religion, would you become a murder...etc"?
Faith and religion are clearly not the same thing, since its possible (perhaps common) to have either one without the other. Many people have faith in non-religious things, and the churches are full of people who don't actually believe the doctrine.


That aside, I think the only honest answer I can give is "I don't know". Since my Christianity (both as religion and faith) has had such an effect on my life, I'd be hesitant to try and predict where I would be if that factor were entirely removed. I'm sure it would largely depend on what factor replaced it.

But, if I may ask and answer a slightly different question (one which will have some bearing on your question), it would be "Could I ever become (or could I have become) a murderer or pedophile?" and I think the answer is undoubtedly "yes".
I've encounter more than enough occasions in which I found myself doing terrible things that I never thought I would do, always the result of a series of tiny immoral choices; choices I tried very hard not to notice I was making at the time. Thankfully those things were never quite as terrible as the ones you've mentioned; but in truth they differed only in some of the specifics.

From my experience with myself, I've learned that great evils are almost always the result of many "little" evils; a slow process of desensitization, of self-corruption. Thus, we should be very wary of every saying "I would never kill another person in cold blood" if we none-the-less allow ourselves to indulge in hatred toward another person, or worse yet, to engage in minor cruelties against them.
I firmly believe those small choices change who we are. Perhaps the person we are now would never commit a great and terrible evil, but if allow ourselves to commit these little evils we may no longer be this same person when the opportunity to commit great evil arises.


But what does any of that have to do with faith or religion? There are two points of relation for me.

First, it was my faith and religious experience that most strongly encouraged me consider the effects that making evil choices had on me and the way in which small choices became larger ones. Whether some other encouragement would have arises if I had had no experience of religion, I cannot say. And clearly there are a number of possible religions that would have had a similar effect.

Second, and more importantly, I believe in the immortality of the soul (though I admit to not being sure how it all works out). I believe that who we become here and now is not something that will just cease to exist after we die.
And this becomes extremely important when making little moral decisions.
For example, perhaps I notice that my temper is getting a little worse every year. I'm letting myself become just a tiny bit more bitter and cruel. The progression might be very slight, so slight that if I'm going to cease to exist in sixty years it will hardly become noticeable to anyone else. But, if that part of me is going to live forever and it continues to grow crueler, no matter how slowly, then it might be absolutely hell in the long run. In fact, according to what I believe religion-wise, Hell is precisely what it will become.
So my religious beliefs give me some reason additional reasons to change now, while the steps are small and changing course is easiest.

No, I don't think any specific faith/religion is necessary for being a moral human being.

this is probably a more accurate assumption on faith.

JHC, Christian righteousness is what the Christians strives for. To paraphrase Martin Luther he wrote that there are different kinds of righteousness. Civil righteousness is one kind. It has to deal with following the laws of society and following the morals of that society.

Christian righteousness is very different. It requires faith alone in God and Jesus as your savior.

Thus one can be moral, and not believe in God. But one cannot have Christian righteousness without faith. What you are talking about is Christian righteousness and you are right; One cannot be righteousness before God without faith in him and Christ, but one can be moral without belief. You can even be righteous in the eyes of society by following the morals of that society without belief in God.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Have I ever mentioned that Non Sequitur is among my favorite Christians on this board? I think many Christians could learn a thing or two from this person, as he appears to really understand Christ's message & attempts to truly follow it in both words & actions.

Sorry if I come off like a kiss-ass, Non, but I do respect your posts regarding your faith.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Thank you Mark. I enjoy reading your posts too. I have to think pretty hard when I get into a discussion with you.

As for words and actions though,in words i might sound good with regards to the Christian life, but in actions i have as many problems as the next Christian.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Martin Luther.



YOU confuse todays practice with what is specifically written in the religious text. Which is exactly my point. Thus my comment "if you bought it hook, line and sinker..."

The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc... provide very specific edicts which are intended to constitute morality for the followers. The fact that you feel it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing today because society is different, means that you don't completely believe what the religious text states.

I completely understand what both of you are trying to impart and again, I appreciate the sentiment. But this does not invalidate my comment(s).
Religion seems a fairly useless thing if it does not impart a moral code.

However, I will not soon forget your argument and will resurrect it again and again in arguments about the separation of church and state, the Christian Nation myth, religion in politics, etc...

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Do you believe that one must accept Jesus as Savior in order to enter heaven?

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

haha ok so that is your game is it

talking about what is specifically written in the religious texts If i have kids I can stone them, slaves can be kept and should obey there masters, and in my favorite story 2 she-bears (yes the text is specific) came out of the woods and mauled 42 children when Elisha cursed them. There is a lot of crap in the Bible, most of it is pretty strange, some is just crazy, and some is written to a very specific time and place. The moral code is also useless if you use regulations that made sense 2000 years ago, but now are useless. Some of the dietary laws for example are really ways to make sure the food doesn't get infested. Today those laws don't make sense because of the technology we have (a gift from God in my point of view).

Earlier you quoted a passage from John. The part you put in bold talked about how the disbelievers were judged already because of their disbelief. Where I say your mistake is that you are assuming that morality (and specifically human morality) is the standard by which we are judged. This is just untrue because standard by which you would be judged (assuming morality entered into the equation) would be God's morality (God's righteousness or the "law"). Now no one can every obtain this morality because we are flawed human beings so God is judging you by faith alone (now I am a Lutheran so probably not every Christian on this board will agree with me here). The fact that you, I, and every person in all creation is immoral compared to God's standard has nothing to do with it anymore because of God's grace through Christ. That is why that passage says believing and no where talks about being a moral or upright human being. From belief comes Christian righteousness (morality) which is what saves, not people following societies morals. True that the morality of the followers is clearly laid out in the Bible and other religious text, but as Christians the morality that is laid out is for Christians and does not assume that all those who don't follow are immoral. As i said earlier you may be moral, just not righteous.

Also if you want my personal opinion on morality, judgment, and its ramifications in the afterlife I strongly believe in what John Calvin said "we must assume all people are saved because we know not their relationship with God and Christ." I cannot know the mind of God and who enters heaven and it is up to God alone who goes where when they die. Also Matthew 7:1 says "judge not or you will be judged." Frankly it's not up to me do judge you or any other person, believer or non-believer.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

My personal favorite!

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Not a game at all, Non Sequitur.

The point I'm making is simple. What good are such things as the ten commandments, (for instance) if you don't consider them part of the Christian moral code? And if you argue that the ten commandments are part of a moral code but other parts of the bible are well, maybe not so much moral today, then what good was the original moral code and why should it have any bearing at all today?

The argument of a true believer should be that the Bible most certainly is a moral code!

It is true that Christians behave immorally. We all do regardless of whose morality we use. I'm saying however, that a true believer must believe that a non-believer cannot possibly be a moral person without the specific instruction of the holy book.

Even CS Lewis made a similar argument.

Have we actually strayed so far that even CS Lewis seems archaic?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I hate to speak for Non, but he appears to have missed this post, so I'm bumping it to the front of the line.

Perhaps I'm confusing Non w/another poster, but I do recall that he has stated something similar to the following: there are many paths to heaven.

For Non, I believe his chosen path is via following the path blazed by Jesus Christ. I respect that. At the same time (and again, Non, I apologize if I'm mis-stating your case), he recognizes that other faiths and paths may be just as valid a course to a glorious afterlife.

What I have trouble accepting is the notion that there's only one true path. That seems antiquated, perhaps a relic of Torquemada's Inquisition.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

ah now here is a series of good questions. As for CS Lewis, he is one of my favorite authors and his book the Great Divorce has been a great influence on my theology. That does not mean I agree with him on everything. Lewis also talks about how all people have a certain moral code that was instilled by God regardless of faith.

Ok first, yes the ten commandments are part of the moral code. The standard of judgment i use when wondering whether something is part of the moral code is if it is in line with Jesus' teachings in the Gospel. This is called the lens of the Gospel. All scripture is read with Christ in mind. Thus we identify the moral code by remembering what Christ teaches.

Parts of the original moral code don't have bearing today. In leviticus there is a ritual described on how to cleanse yourself after you have sex with a goat or sheep or something like that. That was at one time part of the moral code (it scares me to think of that because it means it must have been a problem in ancient Israelite society ) Now it's not really a problem so i don't think we need to have that as part of the code. Likewise the Jewish regulations on meat aren't necessary because of what God tells Peter in Acts (basically all things are clean). Paul talks an awful lot about how we are free from the law because of Christs death and resurrection. God sacrificed his only son so that we not be held to that strict moral standard you are talking about. The Law tells me i have sinned, it is the standard of judgment had Christ not died. Because of Christ though the law no longer condemns me. We still need the code though to tell us how much we need Christ.

Now i mean no offense by this last comment, but earlier in this thread you said you were a non-believer. This I respect but I don't quite understand the reasoning of a non-believer telling what a believer