Can Non-Christians be Moral?

The best of the best
Post Reply
battery chucka' one
Elwood
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:05 pm

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by battery chucka' one »

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
poptart wrote:The 'denominations' are a creation of man, not God.
So no surprise at all that they fracture, deceive and pervert unity among believers in Jesus Christ.
Completely concur.

I also agree.
poptart wrote:Christ's church is not built on any denomination.
His church is built on individual people.
Ah, but human nature screws things up. You'll have a set of lazy and/or dimwitted folks who are desperate to get a step-by-step set of directions ("please....tell us what to do!!!"), and another set of ambitious, power-hungry folks more than willing to be the self-appointed, "enlightened" priestly caste ("here - I've read the Scriptures and will explain them for you...you must do as I say...").

Perhaps you need to re-read Poptart's comment and then answer to that. The way God intended, as outlined in the Bible, is not the way man has, for the most part, pursued. You end up with narrow-minded, arrogant, children who desire to re-write the Bible and God to suit their own ends. Sound familiar? Look in the mirror.
poptart wrote:Those who recognize and confess that Jesus is the Christ are those who Christ's church is built upon.
You make it sound so simple. Maybe it's supposed to be that simple.

But, you've got people debating over things like Original Sin (which, as I've already pointed out, Jesus never discussed and Jews don't teach), various sacraments, whether or not Peter had primacy - and if he did, was he empowered to designate specific "heirs?"

It IS that simple. NOTHING man does will EVER make them justified for even looking upon God, let alone spending eternity with Him. Jesus described the world as wicked. Without the entrance of eternal sin into it, why would he describe it as such? Was it through coincidence?
poptart wrote:The early church held on to this simple fact as the covenant, and with it, they completely (and against all odds and logic) conquered their field.
Actually, things looked pretty bleak until Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome (btw, he was Christian AND still worshipped other gods...sort of covering his bases). Christianity and its various denominations took off, one could argue, not because the masses across civilization felt the Holy Spirit...but because certain individuals with armies behind them compelled citizens to convert and worship.

Yes, Constantine chose Christianity. I don't know to what extent. Was it all based on the dream? I don't know. Did he still worship other gods? Of course. Again, beyond the dream and the banners and his 'pseudo' conversion, I know little more about this.

However, God's word would have prevailed whether Constantine chose to make it the state religion or not. God is bigger than Rome.

poptart wrote:America is a much different field, because people are already well acquainted with a 'form' of Christianity as put forth by a given denomination.
Also because the refusal of our Founding Fathers to allow a "state church" let the people worship (or not) as they individually saw fit. People were no longer forced by civil law to be whatever denomination the state required, allowing them to choose whichever version of God (even his absence or irrelevance) they wanted. If the words of Scripture brought an individual to Christ, wonderful - they just shouldn't try to use government force to make their neighbor follow Christ if the neighbor doesn't feel similarly "called" by Scripture.

Christians can cry all they want about how everything in America went to hell in a handbasket when we "took God out of the schools," but that's complete horseshit. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

Umm, you do know that rule was to protect and insolate the church from the government and not the other way around, right? It was to allow us ignoramuses to continue to read and hold in high regard this Book for which you have so much contempt.
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
And then he wrote his own version of the Bible. You'd have loved this guy.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
User avatar
Mike the Lab Rat
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: western NY

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by Mike the Lab Rat »

battery chucka' one wrote:Perhaps you need to re-read Poptart's comment and then answer to that. The way God intended, as outlined in the Bible, is not the way man has, for the most part, pursued. You end up with narrow-minded, arrogant, children who desire to re-write the Bible and God to suit their own ends. Sound familiar? Look in the mirror.
I suggest you follow your own advice.
battery chucka' one wrote:Umm, you do know that rule was to protect and insolate the church from the government and not the other way around, right?
Actually, sport, it was not just "the other way around."

The rule was written to yes, protect churches from the government, but ALSO to prevent the kind of tyranny that state-sponsored churches caused. I'm not just talking about stuff like the Inquisition and the Crusades, but also the huge chunk of European history in which religious authorities mucked with wholly civil affairs (deciding who should be crowned, what faith the citizens must follow and financially support - under pain of incarceration and/or death, etc.).

The Founding Fathers were all too aware of the abuse that state-sponsored churches inflicted in the "Mother Country" and in the colonies. I would count the taxation of the citizenry to support the state church as an abuse - an abuse to which colonial Virginia also added civil fines for non-attendance of the parishes of said church (even if you weren't a member of the faith). No man should be compelled to support a faith in which he does not believe. However, this was the evil practice of Great Britain and parts of colonial America. THAT was also on the minds of the Founders as they drew up the various documents that set up our nation.
battery chucka' one wrote:It was to allow us ignoramuses to continue to read and hold in high regard this Book for which you have so much contempt.
It was also to keep you ignoramuses from using the law to force your neighbors to read that book or financially support your church.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
battery chucka' one wrote:And then he wrote his own version of the Bible. You'd have loved this guy.
I'm well aware of his edited version of the Bible. I own one. I'm a big fan of TJ. Have been for decades. I have a mini-library of stuff by and about him. I agree with many of his statements regarding organized religion and how many of Jesus's followers corrupted His teachings.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by poptart »

Mike wrote:I agree with many of his statements regarding organized religion and how many of Jesus's followers corrupted His teachings.
Some might say that slashing the Bible up and rewriting it to fit the imagination of one's own mind is a corruption of the teachings of God.

Yeah, I'm nitpicking, perhaps.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29337
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by BSmack »

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:And then he wrote his own version of the Bible. You'd have loved this guy.
I'm well aware of his edited version of the Bible. I own one. I'm a big fan of TJ. Have been for decades. I have a mini-library of stuff by and about him. I agree with many of his statements regarding organized religion and how many of Jesus's followers corrupted His teachings.
Watching someone step to Mike regarding Jefferson is like watching a mouse step to a python. You know how it will end, but you just HAVE to watch.

I got my popcorn.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
battery chucka' one
Elwood
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:05 pm

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by battery chucka' one »

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Perhaps you need to re-read Poptart's comment and then answer to that. The way God intended, as outlined in the Bible, is not the way man has, for the most part, pursued. You end up with narrow-minded, arrogant, children who desire to re-write the Bible and God to suit their own ends. Sound familiar? Look in the mirror.
I suggest you follow your own advice.
battery chucka' one wrote:Umm, you do know that rule was to protect and insolate the church from the government and not the other way around, right?
Actually, sport, it was not just "the other way around."

The rule was written to yes, protect churches from the government, but ALSO to prevent the kind of tyranny that state-sponsored churches caused. I'm not just talking about stuff like the Inquisition and the Crusades, but also the huge chunk of European history in which religious authorities mucked with wholly civil affairs (deciding who should be crowned, what faith the citizens must follow and financially support - under pain of incarceration and/or death, etc.).

The Founding Fathers were all too aware of the abuse that state-sponsored churches inflicted in the "Mother Country" and in the colonies. I would count the taxation of the citizenry to support the state church as an abuse - an abuse to which colonial Virginia also added civil fines for non-attendance of the parishes of said church (even if you weren't a member of the faith). No man should be compelled to support a faith in which he does not believe. However, this was the evil practice of Great Britain and parts of colonial America. THAT was also on the minds of the Founders as they drew up the various documents that set up our nation.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

That's the 'separation of church and state' that mouth breathers like yourself seem to goo over. That is GOVERNMENT CREATING AND ENDORSING A RELIGION. It says NOWHERE that religion isn't allowed to play a role in politics. Is this really that hard for you?

State sponsored churches were churches that were infected by the government, you half-wit. Not the other way around. That's why they saw a need to keep the government's meddling hands off all churches. Got that sunshine? For NON-Christians, it's always par for the course to pretend that it's the other way around. Last I checked, Christ said 'to God what is God's and to caesar what is caesar's'. He meant that we must endure and not become part of the government and other MAN MADE INSTITUTIONS. Peter concurred, saying that we should submit ourselves to the government authorities. However we, as Christians, should always remember that we are foreigners here. What part of that are you having problems with?

battery chucka' one wrote:It was to allow us ignoramuses to continue to read and hold in high regard this Book for which you have so much contempt.
It was also to keep you ignoramuses from using the law to force your neighbors to read that book or financially support your church.

I don't believe it says in there anywhere that either everyone's child should be forced to endure that book or that the government should finance any churches. Quite unlike the government supported teaching of theoreticals such as evolution. But then, your religion of science is 'legitimate' in your eyes, now isn't it? Praise humanity for that one, eh?
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
battery chucka' one wrote:And then he wrote his own version of the Bible. You'd have loved this guy.
I'm well aware of his edited version of the Bible. I own one. I'm a big fan of TJ. Have been for decades. I have a mini-library of stuff by and about him. I agree with many of his statements regarding organized religion and how many of Jesus's followers corrupted His teachings.

I have no desire to discuss the political George Foreman to Hamilton's Ali in this thread. Can't beat the 'christian' ethos of one who rapes his slaves, refuses to free them after his death (and, by proxy, deeds and condemns them to his future generations), and then tops it all of by rewriting the Bible in his own image. Perhaps he needed to add something that allows for such behavior. I don't know. You tell me.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
User avatar
Mike the Lab Rat
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: western NY

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by Mike the Lab Rat »

battery chucka' one wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

That's the 'separation of church and state' that mouth breathers like yourself seem to goo over. That is GOVERNMENT CREATING AND ENDORSING A RELIGION. It says NOWHERE that religion isn't allowed to play a role in politics. Is this really that hard for you?

State sponsored churches were churches that were infected by the government, you half-wit. Not the other way around.
Your grasp of history is as bad as your grasp of religion.

Popes and bishops routinely saw fit to meddle in civil affairs, deciding which individual was a "legitimate" contender for the crown, threatening interdicts when royals refused to do their bidding, abusing the laity with forced fees for the churches, insisiting that man-made denominational rules be enforced as civil law...
battery chucka' one wrote:That's why they saw a need to keep the government's meddling hands off all churches. Got that sunshine? For NON-Christians, it's always par for the course to pretend that it's the other way around. Last I checked, Christ said 'to God what is God's and to caesar what is caesar's'. He meant that we must endure and not become part of the government and other MAN MADE INSTITUTIONS. Peter concurred, saying that we should submit ourselves to the government authorities. However we, as Christians, should always remember that we are foreigners here. What part of that are you having problems with?
Although most of the Founding Fathers were at least nominally Christian, many of them (Jefferson and Madison, particularly) had a reasonable distrust on institutional Christianity, based upon the history of Christian churches and their meddling with government. They had incredibly low opinions of priests and ministers.

The Founders wanted to ensure that no religious tests for government offices were instituted and that no official state church would ever be set up. To claim otherwise would either be ignorant or outright lying.
battery chucka' one wrote:]I don't believe it says in there anywhere that either everyone's child should be forced to endure that book or that the government should finance any churches. Quite unlike the government supported teaching of theoreticals such as evolution. But then, your religion of science is 'legitimate' in your eyes, now isn't it? Praise humanity for that one, eh?
Ah, you finally snapped and went to the evolution card. I wondered how long it would take you.

First off, dimwit - you've showed your complete ignorance of science by misusing the term "theory." In science, the word "theory" specifically means an explanation for a set of observations that is well-supported by corroborating evidence from experiments and/or observations. Natural selection is supported by evidence from physiology & anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, geology, developmental biology, and physics.

Secondly, science is in no way, shape, or form a religion. It makes no claims on determining moral paths, the nature of good and evil, what happens when we die, etc. Science attempts to determine what and how, but not ultimate "whys." Science is, by its nature tentative, self-correcting, and always ready to overturn old ideas when enough new evidence accumulates. It deals solely with the natural world, not the supernatural. It is an open process that subjects its practitioners to a brutal arena of ideas that must be published, dissected, and defended. Religion, OTOH, deals with absolute certainties, does not deal with accumulation of scientific evidence (instead relying upon faith), and deals with morals, ethics, and the supernatural.

The two spheres are separate.

I know that it's a standard tactic for thumpers to attempt to classify science as a religion in a pathetic try to get their warped mythologies taught in schools, but all the attempt shows is the glaring inbred, hillbilly lack of education on the part of the thumpers. The courts (even those run by conservative justices) have seen right through the half-assed idiocy of the holy-rollers.
battery chucka' one wrote:I have no desire to discuss the political George Foreman to Hamilton's Ali in this thread. Can't beat the 'christian' ethos of one who rapes his slaves, refuses to free them after his death (and, by proxy, deeds and condemns them to his future generations), and then tops it all of by rewriting the Bible in his own image. Perhaps he needed to add something that allows for such behavior. I don't know. You tell me.
Actually, there is no evidence that Jefferson "raped" his slaves. Being a molecular biologist by education and practice, I read the actual scientific paper tha day it came out in Nature and realized that, once again, the international media did a piss-poor job of reporting science.The alleged genetic evidence that claims that Jefferson fathered children through Hemings was by no means conclusive (as the authors of the research later admitted). Jefferson's DNA was not analyzed, and he had no male heirs, so they hit up the corpse of a relative. All the evidence showed was that someone in Jefferson's family knocked boots with Sally. In fact, one thing that came out of the research was that the family line that had the "strongest oral claim" on being descendent from Jefferson and his slaves had NO Jeffersonian DNA in them - but did have Caucasian DNA from that period, strongly implying that Sally was being porked by a French dude while in Paris.

As for the rest - yes, Jefferson's actions regarding his slaves were inexcusable from our perspective. He was a deeply flawed individual, inconsistant in how he chose to live out the truths he described in his writings (in another example, consider his view of very limited Presidential power vs. his unauthorized purchase of Louisiana).

But we're waaaaaaay off track now.

To the thread's title - yes, non-Christians can be moral. Most, in my opinion, are.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
battery chucka' one
Elwood
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:05 pm

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by battery chucka' one »

Mike, it is pretty obvious that you quite willingly place your science before God. It's also quite apparent that you see nothing wrong with this. Perhaps you came to understand that there was a God via science. Maybe that same science let you know that Jesus was the Messiah and God. Great. You're on your way to salvation, but won't get there by merely 'knowing', no matter how much you 'know' beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you should check out James 18-20, if you don't believe me. You're not the only one who 'knows'. Get back to me after you've read that one. We'll talk more.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
User avatar
Mike the Lab Rat
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: western NY

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by Mike the Lab Rat »

battery chucka' one wrote:Mike, it is pretty obvious that you quite willingly place your science before God.
All science is, bco, is humans attempting to better understand the physical realm - that you and I both believe that God made.

Science has no rightful, logical, legitimate place in trying to explain general morals, ethics, the nature of good and evil, the nature of an afterlife, God, angels, etc. None.

Churches and various "fahred-up Bible folks" have no rightful, logical, legitimate place in attempting to impose their interpretation of Scripture as scientific truth. None.

Scientists who argue that science disproves God are full of shit.
So are thumpers who get their panties in a wad over scientific theories.

Dawkins is a colossal asshat. Dembski is an inveterate liar.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
User avatar
SunCoastSooner
Reported Bible Thumper
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Destin, Florida

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by SunCoastSooner »

You people scare me sometimes.

For the most part this thread has left me speechless for weeks.

Some of the same people that laud Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and numerous of the founders in other forums seem to come in here and want to make the argument that non-christians are immoral. I don't get it...
BSmack wrote:I can certainly infer from that blurb alone that you are self righteous, bible believing, likely a Baptist or Presbyterian...
Miryam wrote:but other than that, it's cool, man. you're a christer.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Sunny, yer cards are on table as a flat-out Christer.
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by PSUFAN »

Nice thread, upstart.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
trev
New Sheriff in Town
Posts: 5032
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: semi retirement

Re:

Post by trev »

poptart wrote:upstart was run.
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Re: Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Post by Diogenes »

SunCoastSooner wrote:Some of the same people that laud Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and numerous of the founders in other forums seem to come in here and want to make the argument that non-christians are immoral. I don't get it...
And who exactly is making this argument?
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
upstart
Elwood
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:01 pm
Location: the north shore of Boston

Re: Re:

Post by upstart »

trev wrote:
poptart wrote:upstart was run.
Upstart is reading
Three time Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots
Post Reply