Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

Yet she is told to repent of her sins, so after the painful experience, if she henceforth sinned no more, and did not partake in wickedness/atrocities, and become peaceful and good (as most people's definition would incorporate), and believing - with faith, THEN she would be christian.Even satan acknowledges Jesus as Christ, yet he isn't a christian. And even Christ said many will claim to know him and believe, and yet he will say, "I never knew you".Besides this; Isn't it common sense, that a person who follows Christ or is Christlike, will obviously try to do as Christ says? Geez..I'm amazed you will miss this stuff, in preference of wanting it to be your own way.As for the dictionary, a chair can quite obviously mean different things, whereas this list of definitions for christian - is more of a list of attributions concerning the same thing. A christian is to be a list of attributes, it is I suppose, a culmination of qualities.
I mean, obviously we all know what we are talking about, if we say, "Jar is a christian".

Thank you for your reply. Ah, but if I only looked at one translation and one commentary, I would not be a diligent student, would I? And if G.H.S. does not make it knowable to me, then I am only learning subjectively. Must every professing 'Christian' be perfect for Christianity to be valid? Christians are people too, and easily decline into reversionism. You choose to look to the poor examples of Christianity to make your judgements about it because you have already rejected it. I have my reasons to believe what I believe. And my faith is strong that if I lost everything tomorrow, I would praise God.Are you certain of what you believe? Do think that humanism may be flawed? Do you ever entertain the idea that Christianity might be right? Is this a warning that I will make poor choices if I do not reject God and his Word? Don't worry about me... Bible doctrine has completely turned me around and got me making right choices now (most of the time). The ONLY thing that could cause me to lose faith is arrogance, which I successfully battle against daily.On the contrary, I've found that Bible doctrine has made me far MORE flexible and more relaxed. But you were talking about flexibility with virtue. No, I will not be flexible with my virtues. My integrity is the most important thing I have. God of course. By the Bible I learn more about Him and can better respect and love Him and also learn how to live righteously. Yes of course, thats why I do the objective learning beforehand and the application to subjective experience afterwards. Because my perception of reality will be filled with subjectivity, sin, and emotion and would never completely fit. This is how sects split up: one person gets a subjective opinion on reality through his own experience, and then tries to fit scripture with experience instead of experience with scripture. No two people perceive reality the same way unless they share the common scriptural lens. It would be most honest to check myself BY myself??? No, certainly if I want to check myself honestly, I must appeal to an outside standard. If you're insinuating that only ignorant morons or stubborn neurotics uphold Christianity, you're sorely mistaken. People of all IQ's and education have been strong Christians. The reason humanism rises with an intellectual populace, is that people place more faith in themselves than in God. Human wisdom becomes a source of arrogance forbidding anyone to trust in anything besides themselves. So if you are allowed to use this as a point, why am I not allowed to make the point that many of our Founding Fathers adhered to Christianities ideals? Sigh.... it is only depressing to you because it shatters your golden image of humanity. It is not unfair, for the reasons I gave in another thread and furthermore because God provided a solution by grace. Haha... now you are calling murder and rape an interesting product of human imperfection in free-will when it suits your purposes, whereas before you were calling it an evil and sedistic product of God when arguing against God...So, when arguing for humanism: humans are mostly good and bad is what makes life fun and interesting...When arguing against God: God is mostly bad and all bad is despicable.Hmm...Anyways, I cannot say that I like being imperfect, but in a sense it is my imperfections, which refine my will to conform it to God's. If I were perfect to begin with, I'd have everything to lose, but being imperfect, I have everything to gain. Oh really, so you believe that divorce, murder, money lust, power lust, arrogance, and churches having political power etc... and so forth are all fundamental principles of Christianity?Didn't the Pope kind of make up his doctrine as he went along? and didn't Henry kind of use whatever immoral means necessary to establish an heir to the throne? It seems like both had their own purposes in mind rather than God's. I'm glad you acknowledge this. It is not hard to see that the Catholic church severely perverted Christianity in all its scheming back in the day. Oh, don't give the that lame bullshit again.If a car has 4 wheels an internal combustion engine, a steering column and a transmission,then can you really call a contraption with two wheels, pedals, a chain, and handlebars a car?Edited to add: well, I suppose you could say the two gears plus the two tires make 4 wheels and the rider internaly digests and burns food to make the pedals turn, and the gears act as a transmission... This is ridiculous. Anyone knows a bike is not a car.But this is what people do when they pervert Christianity. Thanks! This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-07-2004 04:02 PMThis message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-07-2004 04:10 PM

According to the dictionary, yeah, he's a Christian. Take it up with the dictionary people, huh? First definition doesn't demand following Christ or being Christlike, Mike. So I'm gonna call a big ol' strawman on that one. (Oops, I forgot... you find it annoying and lame to be called on logical fallacies.)But are we now saying that common sense overrides the dictionary? Because just a post ago, you were going on about how the dictionary definition was the really important thing. What changed? Apart from the position of the goalposts, I mean. Gee. The dictionary people sure dropped the ball by parsing that culmination of qualities into separate definitions. You really might want to consider dropping them a line and letting them know how wrong they are.I guess their definition should read: Seriously. Write 'em a letter. Tell them how badly they screwed up.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

It's also funny that, checking dictionary.com, I see that you're using the definition for "Christian" as an adjective. As a noun, there are only two definitions: Sorta kicks off that "culmination of qualities" idea, I guess.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 07-07-2004 04:15 PM

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

and I freely admit that I have been about as guilty as you can get on going OT.But this thread was intended to show examples of non-Cristian Moral systems. So far we have had a brief mention of Buddhism.Can we get some examples of other such systems and their basic tenets?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's not the dictionary that has screwed up. You see, this is quite simply common sense. Because we all know that a believer in Christ would also follow his teachings. So we don't need the dictionary for this common sense. Also, CHRIST himself says it's not enough. If we call him master, why then do we do not as he says......Deary me, Dan never did read the NT it seems.The definitions for christian are all given to decribe "christian" as one thing; that thing nevertheless is described through a criteria. Whereas "chair" could mean two different things. The list of definitions are required, yet in some cases a word might mean two things.For example; yellow is a colour. But if I say to you, "you're yellow" - Do I mean you have jaundice? Or do I mean you are a chicken?Yet, if a word such as lion is defined as "big cat" does that mean my pet which is a big cat, is a lion? By your logic it does. If a lion is described as a "brave man" does that mean that a brave man is the same thing as a big cat? Or are they two different things?Now christian? If one is a believer in Christ, then is he described as a believer in Christ, or a christian? Surely the former is more accurate.But nevertheless, if you had read my posts, you would see that I provided the dictionaries definitions as an objective source only. NOT as my own definition(s) of christian. And then Schraff said it's not acceptable, so I offered my own one, because you had jaundice when I asked you to give me a definition. And I see you weren't willing to take my little test.So listen, even if the dictionary had them as seperate things, that means a christian is five different things. Yet WE KNOW that a christian is a word used for one thing, unlike lion.So wickedness/atrocities are still not accurate definitions of christian, and they most definitely contradict what a christian is, even if someone did believe in Christ, by common sense, they would do as Christ said do, otherwise, why would they believe? Atheists don't believe in Christ Dan, because of what he says.You're obsessed with the dictionary, but it's no big deal. It was an objective source for Schraff. Shall I make another definition, with attributes in one sentence?

So... what you perceive to be common sense does override the dictionary. That's odd. I could have sworn there were two definitions there. No, it means you've stopped consulting the dictionary for your definitions. Lion is not defined as "big cat". No, Mike. It means that calling either one a lion is perfectly valid, and that if I point to a large carnivorous feline mammal (Panthera leo) of Africa and northwest India, having a short tawny coat, a tufted tail, and, in the male, a heavy mane around the neck and shoulders, and say, "that's a lion", you're just going to be a world class chump if you say "but it's not a brave man! Therefore it's not a true lion." And that objective source utterly cornholes your point. Thanks for providing it. Oddly enough, the English language is good enough for me. But have fun making up definitions. I'm sure it's a hoot. Or that there are five equally valid ways of defining the one word. (There are actually two, but you keep using the adjective instead of the noun.) Never said it was. Only that according to the dictionary, there are definitions that don't exclude it, any more than they exclude wearing funny paper hats. As always, only if we completely ignore definitions you don't like. And once again, talk to the good people at the dictionary company. Until then, the English language disagrees with your statements on what makes a Christian. Now this is just the funniest thing you've said all day. Oo, me first! I define "clock radio" to mean "naked Eliza Dushku".Holy crap, I gotta go. Apparently there's a naked Eliza Dushku in my bedroom! After all, I said that's what it means!This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 07-08-2004 01:51 AM

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: So you say. But what you've said is a pure assertion. Changing this around and I get:"As I said before, green pixies can be seen by all, so fairy-tale creatures can be found everywhere. Happy-endings are knowable only by believers."This doesn't progress your case at all. When you say that truth is attainable only with humility, I'd say that free thinking is discouraged. Humility means, literally, to submit. In your case, it is necessary to abandon questioning and a critical approach to the bible's truthfulness, and "submit" under the guise that whatever the bible says is unquestionably true - which in turn is your foundation for the assertion that the Holy Spirit give rise to the ultimate standard of morality.And just in case you don't realise, Christianity IS by all definitions a form of idolatry. I'm afriad that your twisted interpretation of words do not skew their meanings for others. And this is PRECISELY the point I'm making! How can you see so clearly the flaw in my dummy argument when you fail to see the glaring error in YOUR argument that I ripped the reasoning from?My hand is not a standard to you because you do not believe that your God made my hand the standard. Similarly, your Bible is not a standard because all the non-Christians in the world do not believe that your God is the "author of truth".Is it now clear to you why you should step outside Christianity, look around and realise that the world is not as deeply rooted in the "I think therefore I'm right" mindset as you. After numerous unrefuted challenges on your reasoning and arguments, do you still fail to understand why it is ill-adviced to use the Bible as a guideline for the rest of the world?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

quote:

---

In other words, Schraff can stick all the broken coke bottles up your ass she wants as you scream for mercy, and yet if she simply acknowledges Jesus as Christ, then she is a true Christian.

---

LOL, but...eeeeeewwww.

Make him squeal like a piggy, Schraf.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

To mike_the_wiz: Funny how every time someone informs you that you're twisting the meanings of words to whatever you see fit, you seem to have this unnatural affinity towards accusing them of being "obsessed with the dictionary".If memory serves, I think I too had the honour of being accused as such in the past.Perhaps this is just your way of conceding that your opponent is intellectually superior.By the way, now that you're back, care to shed light on assorted lose ends that you have left untied? I have several threads awaiting your attention. Please don't make me remind you again.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

quote:

---

Ah, but if I only looked at one translation and one commentary, I would not be a diligent student, would I? And if G.H.S. does not make it knowable to me, then I am only learning subjectively.

---

Stop with the "subjective" lunacy.Every theology or philosophy is subjective by definition, because there is no way to test theology or philosophy.OTOH, since you cannot know every interpretation possible, you cannot have perfect knowledge, therefore you cannot know for 100% certainty that your preferred interpretation is the right one.Before you say "The Holy Spirit tells me which ones are right", how am I to tell the difference between all the people who say this, yet got radically different answers from the Holy Spirit?How do I tell who is right when the only thing any of them have to support their assertion is "I feel inside of me that I am correct."?

quote:

---

Must every professing 'Christian' be perfect for Christianity to be valid? Christians are people too, and easily decline into reversionism. You choose to look to the poor examples of Christianity to make your judgements about it because you have already rejected it.

---

No, I have known many wonderful Christian people, and no, I do not expect Christians to be perfect for Christianity to be valid.However, Christianity seems to me to be hypocritical, in that it speaks of peace and love and humbleness, and rejecting worldliness out of one side of it's mouth and yet so very few Christians seem to be loving, humble, or peaceful, nor do they reject material wealth.

quote:

---

Are you certain of what you believe?

---

Not entirely, no.I'm an Agnostic, so I'm a doubter by trade.

quote:

---

Do think that humanism may be flawed?

---

I know that it is flawed. The thing is, I believe it is flawed the least of any philosopy I have ever come across.

quote:

---

Do you ever entertain the idea that Christianity might be right?

---

Well, no more than I entertain the idea that Zoroastoism, or Hinduism, or any other religion might be right.All of them have the same sort of evidence to support them.Any one, or all of them could be right, but there's no way to tell how or why any of them is the right one.Tell me, hangdawg, how did you first hear about Buddhism?

quote:

---

Is this a warning that I will make poor choices if I do not reject God and his Word?

---

No, it is a warning that you might lose your faith.The more rigid and dogmatic one's religion is, especially in how literaly it requires you to believe the Bible, the more you must abandon reason and logic and blind yourself to the truth of nature in order to maintain your faith.

quote:

---

God of course. By the Bible I learn more about Him and can better respect and love Him and also learn how to live righteously.

---

So, do you believe the Bible can be in error, or that translational errors and errors in interpretation can be made?

quote:

---

If you're insinuating that only ignorant morons or stubborn neurotics uphold Christianity, you're sorely mistaken. People of all IQ's and education have been strong Christians.

---

Of course, look at the Jesuits.However, it is very true that as education levels fall, superstitious beliefs rise, including literal interpretations of bible stories.Sorry, you just can't get around that fact.

quote:

---

The reason humanism rises with an intellectual populace, is that people place more faith in themselves than in God. Human wisdom becomes a source of arrogance forbidding anyone to trust in anything besides themselves.

---

Couldn't it be that people outgrow the need to belive in a myth?Do you believe in Santa Claus?Why or why not?

quote:

---

So, when arguing for humanism: humans are mostly good and bad is what makes life fun and interesting...

---

No.Humans are both bad and good, but our intellects allow us to make choices that are not harmful to others."Flaws" are not the same as "crimes committed".

quote:

---

When arguing against God: God is mostly bad and all bad is despicable.

---

Don't be silly.

quote:

---

Oh really, so you believe that divorce, murder, money lust, power lust, arrogance, and churches having political power etc... and so forth are all fundamental principles of Christianity?

---

Back then they certainly were.

quote:

---

Didn't the Pope kind of make up his doctrine as he went along?

---

...and this would be different from any other religious leader in all of history how, exactly?

quote:

---

and didn't Henry kind of use whatever immoral means necessary to establish an heir to the throne? It seems like both had their own purposes in mind rather than God's.

---

How do you know those weren't God's purposes?(Sounds pretty OT to me)How do you know that any religious leader's purposes are or are not God's?

quote:

---

It is not hard to see that the Catholic church severely perverted Christianity in all its scheming back in the day.

---

But that's what Christianity WAS at that time. That's what it meant to be Christian.OTOH, are you saying that Martin Luther wasn't a crazy corrupt, violent man?

I'd like this to be addressed, HD, please.

quote:

---

RARELY is this the case.

---

Um, this is ALWAYS the case.

quote:

---

Usually it has been a monarchy or oligarchy or aristocracy or plutocracy that has decided what is good for societies as a whole. And when people do, they usually do not re-invent the wheel every time.

---

Sure, if you are only limiting the definition of "society" to recent European nation states. Nation states are a very recent socio/political construct.Human civilization goes back a whole lot farther than that, and they have all had some form of general consensus of what is acceptable behavior of the members of the group.European style governments just built on what had been started amny thousands of years ago, thousands and thousands of years before there were any Jews or Jesus or Christians, or the idea of a monotheistic deity.

And I should add that even the societies with some sort of authoritarian power stucture, mechanisms exist to get the majority of the people to believe the power arrangements are natural and right. A sort of manufactured consensus, if you will.

Yes, right, that's why religions are so important to many societies.It's one thing to try to convince a population that they should want to follow a code of behavior because it's good for everyone, but it's a lot easier to get people to believe that an all-powerful supernatural being, or many gods, cares how you act and will reward or punish you in direct reponse to one's behavior.