I'm not sure I understand the bolded statement.
How could you not have a choice?

The "concept of God" was in response to Mark Twain's post where he used that phrase.
And yes, it would appear that CS Lewis believes morality to be derived from God and thus to be objective.

I would be incline to agree but only because of technology; weapons.

If the Roman Empire (and others) had guns and bombs.........eek, I can only imagine what would have been.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

alright i am going to go through this one by one.

Right here is where you have it exactly right. The standard for earning, in any way, your entry into heaven is impossible to achieve. That is why Christ died so that we are no longer "slaves to the law of sin and death" as Paul writes

Ok I'm not sure where you are getting this. First, I must know what kind of Law are you talking about? like Government law or the "law" in the sense of the Bible? If it is government law that is different because government is called to a fundamentally different thing that the Christian is. If we speak of the "Law" as in the moral code of Christianity then it is meant for the individual, not for some collective damnation tool.

interesting interpretation although i don't agree. When he says "lest you be judged" that's a bad thing. That means we are going to be held to the standard of the law because we did not follow grace. To prevent this i would prefer not to judge

and "must we be more moral" in real life believers are no more moral than anyone else. In fact the Christian right has a fairly high divorce rate. While we strive for a moral life the point of Christianity is that we fail.


Ah here is the real thing. You are right Christianity is not easy. I would say though that the Church is never outside of culture. The church cannot be totally outside culture because that way people will just ignore it and the church will die. If Christians walked around all day saying every non-believer was immoral how many people would be pushed away from the church? I am sure there are people on this board who can say they are offended enough by the Church without a declaration like this. I see it as unnecessary to push these people away.

__________________
"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

Well, I tried to write a reply but it came out as if I was preaching. If there's one thing for certain it's that if I'm starting to preach, even slightly, then something is wrong. And of course, there was. Not following Jesus' teachings does not require a lack of faith (following the tenets of Christianity still does not require faith, though).

You're being tactful - it is not lost on me. Please don't mistake honest discourse for "preaching".

But again, we are not just talking about some random faith. Everyone has faith of some kind - even atheists and sociopaths have faith. We're talking about religious faith and in the case of Jesus, we are talking about the religion of Christianity.

I've tried ever so hard to make clear that I do not believe immorality to be a necessary product of religious faith but if it isn't, it is due to the inconsistencies that exist in the religion itself and not in spite of those inconsistencies. I will apologize for the offense this will cause but I can't apologize for a natural and logical conclusion derived without malice.

Is this preaching? Not really. It is as straightforward and logical as one can be. Show me where the logic is wrong and I won't be offended in the least.

@ Mrs. M, Dilletante & Non Sequitur:

The religion then provides two things:
1) Salvation - an answer to mans greatest fear, that of death. Salvation is to be achieved, regardless of morality, through simple faith in Jesus.
But as you've all so clearly articulated, there is more to Christianity - which was obvious anyway given the volumes of direct commandments, allegories and testimonies of the holy text. That brings us to -

2) Morality. How to live ones life and achieve righteousness. Without this second aspect of the religion, it would be perfectly acceptable to commit any sin at all but one - non-faith aka non-belief. Why? Because non-belief means that you are not moral because without faith in Jesus, then there is no "natural expression of faith in Christ..."(please refer to following quote): So you have two aspects of religion inextricably intertwined. One without the other is useless.

As to the issue of judging others morality: The Bible allows us to judge within the laws of government (in fact specifically mandates it if I'm not mistaken), but how do we create these laws without judging? How do we carry out these laws without judging? God may judge who is moral and we may not but God says we should abide by the laws of government?

When I say that it is impossible not to judge, please read that not as a statement of character but rather a measurement. This "measurement" is absolutely necessary for any society. Let then, God judge character, and man judge measurement of adherence to moral decree as he must.

But in so doing, you are left with only one use for the religion:
1) Salvation - an answer to mans greatest fear, that of death. Salvation is to be achieved, regardless of morality, through simple faith in Jesus.
...

Without faith in Jesus, without knowledge of Jesus existence, hell. Hindu's, Buddhist's, Muslim's, pagans, atheists, agnostics etc... all damned to hell.

It is obvious at least by Mrs. M's posts, that she regrets that Daisym and I have made the "wrong" choice and will go to hell. I appreciate her concern - sincerely.

Is this pity?
Who do we pity if not the pitiable?

It is not difficult for me to see why Daisym bumps into Christians she perceives as arrogant and it is not difficult, given my own stated conclusions, to understand how Christians bump into non-believers (including other religious faiths), and find them to be either lacking or arrogant.

__________________
...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 think you have no morals because you are not a Muslim.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

Of course not!! What a ridiculous assertation (and I know that it isn't really you putting it forth Daisym). Just because some people cannot tell the difference between right and wrong does not mean I don't. And I certainly don't need an ancient text to describe the difference to me.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

My faith is one of many factors that encourage me not to murder or be a pedophile. I feel no desire to be either and have never felt so in the past. If i did want to be either, laws social stigma may serve to discourage me.

As I christian, i do not believe that faith/religion is a requirement to be a moral human being (by human standards).

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Apparently you missed the fun times in Rwanda a few years back. . .with machetes. Hutus & Tutsis had a GRAND ol' time!

That's but one example.

__________________


"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

I'm sorry, but I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. What do you mean by "the religion" in this sense?

I think I would understand if you said "The Bible tells you how to achieve salvation and live morally." (I'm not sure I'd agree, but I'd understand you). But I'm not sure what it means for "the religion" to "provide" something; I can't picture it in my head.

On another note, I disagree with your description of how salvation is to be achieved. And, regarding the bolded sentence, why would anyone believe that? As numerous people have pointed out, the non-religious among us don't seem to believe its ok to kill people left and right, so I can't see how that particular moral code being "provided" by "the religion" has an impact.

Again, I disagree.


But overall two thoughts occur to me:

First, the word "Christian" has been bandied about for centuries now and used to describe a variety of different things (some of them mutually exclusive). May I suggest, JHC, that you have a particular set of beliefs in mind when you think of "Christian", beliefs which many other self-professed Christians may not share.

Second, and related to the first, we began this IIRC with the question of "Do Christians think that non-believers must be less moral just because they're non-believers?"
Now we've had a number of Christians chime in and say "No, I don't, and I'm a Christian." Yet, you seem to be attempting to logically prove that all Christians do feel that way, that they somehow must. In other words, it sounds like you're attempting to prove to us what we ourselves think.
Forgive me if I've misunderstood. But it seems to me we've wandered into a cross-fire of debate where we've lost track of precisely what question was being debated.

I've not lost track of the question at all and the fact that the word "Christian" is bandied about for a couple thousand years does not negate my posts/comments.
Unless you see Christianity differently than do Mrs. M and Non Sequitur, then the Christianity I'm talking about is your own. The quotes in my post were Mrs. M and Non Sequitur, not my own.
At one point you actually said you disagreed with me but I was quoting Non Sequitur.
Possibly you do not believe as Mrs. M and Non Sequitur do, that as a Christian, salvation can only be achieved through Christ. In which case you may as well not bother with the title of Christian.
Not to be rude but I think a lot of Christs teachings are grand but I believe it would be dishonest to call myself a Christian.

__________________
...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'm not trying to prove what anyone thinks. It is your assumption that lead you there.
I've been quite blunt and clear that the religion itself leads to the conclusion regardless of how the followers feel about it themselves. This is in fact, the problem I had hoped to bring to light.

Now you can say that this is not a logical assessment of Christianity but I've only offered a logical challenge so the assumption that I presume what anyone else feels is below the belt and unwarranted. ( my turn to be offended but I'm not...but I could be).

In fact, you completely avoided or failed to critically analyze my presentation of the two reasons for religion. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you rebut.

Then you failed to rationally analyze how I came to the conclusion and actually used quotes from Christians participating in this thread to do it. If you think I'm wrong, use the same quotes and tell me how they can't logically lead you to such a conclusion.

Do I sound a little testy? It is as if there is no rational, non-emotional, honest debate to be had when it comes to religion and that does indeed get under my skin.

Either the logical, rational conclusion is so unpalatable that we can't entertain it at all, or there is some defense mechanism that kicks in to protect a person whenever the subject of religion comes up. Either way, it looks suspicious.

__________________
...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

Well, actually I was mostly recognizing that I was losing track of precisely what the question was and figured I might not be alone. It was meant more as an admission than an accusation.

I'm sure Mrs. M, non and I differ on some details of doctrine, almost everyone does and I've generally found myself to be somewhat looser than the norm.
As it happens, I do believe that salvation can only be achieved through Christ, but I don't believe that one needs to how the details of how salvation works.
Just like your digestive track is necessary for you to avoid starvation. It has to be there, but it will still work for you whether you know how it works (or even if it exists) or not.