Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

One of my favorite lines from Gladiator: "What we do in this life, echoes in eternity". The values of honor, duty, and self-discipline were discovered by the Romans, who were not originally Christians. Bingo. You mentioned the Golden rule, Jesus described this. Also, Jesus said something about not harming the little ones. Also, I think an OBJECTIVE study of the entire Bible reveals that sex is only for a man and woman in a life long relationship we call marriage... but let's not talk about that. "Molesting" is not "[virtue]-loving your neighbor." The Christian model IS fixed. Are the times really changing so much? Do you think morality on the whole is evolving so that way on down the road something like the golden rule will be obsolete?And yes, I recognize that EVERY model (including the Bible, which I believe is the only complete and untainted model) is extremely likely to be subjectively interpreted. The problem is that when people are left to their own devices (without authority of any kind), they have no interest in rational behavior or "enlightened" self-interest, but only self (not humanity in general either just self). If parents fail to teach their children respect for authority, the government must or society falls apart. If people fail to respect God's authority in the morals their society adheres to the society will eventually either fall apart or not be free. So it seems that the golden rule is a static truth and accepted universally. Can you conceive of a more evolved world full of societies where the "social conventions that can change with the society" would make the golden rule universally immoral? If not, then perhaps you will admit that we might have run into an element of absolute static moral truth? Oooo. No I don't have a problem with them. I realize you are addressing Jar's second paragraph in his OP, but let me have some fun with this.What is truth? Who said what evil is? If hurting others makes me feel good, why should I not do it? Who said we should respect life, property, and morality? And what is morality? Oh, I stay in control of my thoughts and actions. I do exactly what I feel like doing with them...Or perhaps: The truth is that the white race is supreme. Jews and all other races are evil, we must remove them. As whites we must adhere to our high moral calling and respect each other and each other's property and most importantly our morality which makes us better than the immoral scum of the world. Focus on controlling yourself for this is how our people will become great. (please note these are not my beliefs)Obviously I have just injected subjectivity into that list by first adding hedonistic and then white supremist views (both of which are equally valid in your logic beacuse all good and bad is subjectively determined). The writer of wisdom, through some objective thinking determined what was "good". Without any authority to back it up, why should I not determine my own set of "morals" which may be contrary to the author's and everyone else's morals? I should? Or why should I not ignore the author's intent all together and twist his writings to fit my own ideals?Oh... I should follow the intent (subject to subjective determination) of his wise words out of enlightened self-interest and rational thought.I think I know what you mean by enlightened self-interest... but tell me how does one become enlightened or what and how must one learn so that one's selfishness is the source of one's morality? And if selfishenss is the origin of all good, then why is it good to be unselfish? And if altruism, unselfishness at its best, (which can even be life-endangering) is motivated by the selfish desire to feel good about one's self, how does this propogate one's genealogical line? If rational thought is what brings enlightenment, what ensures or validates the fact that you are thinking rationally (objectively)? Your own subjective experience?I am not trying to pick on you. I am just trying to illuminate the need for an anchor to truth outside ourselves. God, being truth, is that anchor.I am not saying that people and societies cannot find moral truths apart from God. I am saying that their attatchment to it is weak. It is dependent on things like tradition (relgious or otherwise), authority, the strong arm of the law, and the personal leanings of a society's governor(s) all of which rise and fall with the rise and fall of objectivity in societies throughout history.Without God as an anchor to moral truth, it is easy for moral truths to be attacked and erroded away, ESPECIALLY in a self-governing democracy which is dependent upon the integrity (strict adherence to moral truth) of fickle people.

No. But who said what's right? Amen. Regardless of Christianity, Yes; regardless of God, no, because God is truth. This is evidence of an absolute moral truth that exists no matter where you are. God, not men, created the moral code and it exists for all humans everywhere. Like you said, if you ignore it you will suffer. Christians believe that only Christians have the complete and inerrant guide to it in the Bible.Think of it like a go cart track. All of the drivers of the go carts on this track are blindfolded except for one. This one follows the track without problems. All the rest bump into the walls a few times until their blindfolds fall down a little and they can see a little more. They bump a little more and pretty soon they see the track entirely. Some have blindfolds on so tight, they just don't fall down. Some, put their blind folds back on to "let the spirit(s) guide them".The track is absolute moral truth. The one without a blindfold is the one who possesses God's Word (The Bible) (I might add that by becoming subjective he puts the blindfold right back on even if he does have God's Word). The one who knocks his blindfold down by running into walls is like all those in history who have come up with a working moral code... etc.. and so forth.The Buddhist's adhere to their moral code because they believe it came from a particularly enlightened man. They have faith that what he said is true and it pretty much works for them so they go with it.I adhere to my moral code because I believe it came from God. I have faith that what God said is true and it fits reality so I go with it.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-27-2004 03:09 AM

Can you please name the Christian nations of the past 2000 years and all the wars that each started, so that I can look into this?

So you're saying we take a look at all the worlds moral codes and pick the morals we like best? Well, what we, enlightened people, might like best, the rest of the world may not like best. Who's to say what's best?I'm not saying it can't be done. In fact it obviously can be done and work. The "superiority" of it is subjective. Depending on the people who make the selections you could get an excellent or a terrible code. Any objective person can find moral truth by conscience or reason apart from the Bible. But without God's authority, these are just his opinions.These opinions can and have provided moral codes for all of human history, but they all contain elements of the same moral truth.

Many of the wars you listed (that I am familiar with) happened when religious leaders gained political power. This caused them to abandon the Christian moral code.Agreed the Native Americans were dealt with unfairly, but was the United States treating their enemies on the basis of integrity that the Bible demands? Many times no. However, the wars against the indians were definately not all unjustified. Before we even came here, the indians were constantly engaged in battles amongst themselves slaughtering each other. There is nothing wrong with a war to establish peace and security, in fact military victory is the only way to maintain peace and security in the long run.Hitler obviously did not follow the Christian moral code.How do you ascribe the problems in Palestine with the Christian moral code? The problems in palestine are a direct result of NOT following the Christian moral code.How on earth do you get the terrorist problem to be the result of the Christian moral code? This is absurd.I wanted to see what nations adhering to the Christian moral code have started wars in the past 2000 years, not what wars have been the result of the perversion of the Christian moral code.

Jewish and Christian, yes, Islam, no.Islam DID take lots of ideas from the OT, but added much to it. And as far as I know, muslims are not required to read the OT and they believe the NT is full of lies, so you cannot possibly say that Islam follows the Christian moral code. Pope Leo X gave this title to Henry VIII (a very immoral man) as a reward for ATTACKING lutheran (true Christian) ideas.Clearly this was not given for following the Christian moral code, but for attacking it. Some Mary worshipers were burned along with 1500 other people suspected of being soviet sympahizers by the Nazis. What does this have to do with a nation following the Christian moral code starting a war? It was a nation that actually followed the Christian moral code, the United States, that destroyed the Nazis with their evil plans.Nazis did what they did for power and self-glory, not Christian ideals. Murdering Jews gypsies blacks homos, attacking peaceful nations, world domination, fhurer worship, facism, and creation of a super race are clearly not Christian morals. Where in the Bible does it say to execute those who have beliefs contrary anothers? Where in the Bible does it give church leaders political power?
Many exectued in the inquisition were Christians who DID follow the Christian moral code.A much better example of a nation following a Christian moral code that started a war, would be the Spanish-American war. It started because one of our ships blew up off the coast of cuba. People assumed it was Spain, so we went to war.Or the Brits conquering and settling various countries such as india, South Africa, Rhodesia. I'm simply asking for examples of nations following the Christian moral code that have started wars, so I can determine why and how the war was fought. You have not given me any examples of this, but only examples of evil with the face of Christianity.

You are entitled to your opinion and it is understandable.However, the Christian viewpoint makes sense too. God would create certain laws that govern all humanity to allow sinful mankind to function together. He would give every person a conscience, an intuitive grasp on this moral code, so that all can benefit from it, have a common point of reference, and recognize they've broken it. Those who believe in his existence and want to be accepted by him must be pure because he is pure, so God creates a solution for reconciliation and justification.

If I started shooting muslims and said I was acting on a humanistic moral base, would I be operating under humanism? If I started raping and murdering Buddhists and said I was operating on a Jewish moral base, would I be? If I started blowing up buildings in a muslim nation saying I was operating under a confucianist moral base, would I be?You seem to think the Christian moral code is directly responsible for anything people do in the name of God even when what they do is in direct violation of that code.Anyone can SAY anything they want. I want examples of nations adhering to the Christian moral code, not saying they do and then doing something else.You cannot blame the Christian moral code for atrocities committed in direct violation to it. This is dishonest.

Prove it. Agreed completely! I never said that. I may have said that if people acted according to a very specific set of principles that God made up, then we will have a perfect society. Agreed as far as this age goes. It has certainly never been proven false. And societies have come close to it and prospered, so if they adhered totally, why can't we assume they would not be perfect (totally disregarding the fact that God made them in the first place so they must be perfect)?

We do not need a volume of law books with a precise 2 page description of every single wrong that can be commited. If you think these things are not covered you have not done your homework. Husbands are commanded to love their wives, and virtue love is the order of the day. The Bible condemns gossiping, maligning, judging, slandering, and other evils of the tounge. Well you will not find a good ethics system that has existed for any length of time that has not followed many of the same principles found in the Bible. OOoooo I sense the hate this statement will generate...

Because your conscience and objectivity guide you to it and because (hopefully) the national government is set up adhering to God's natural laws. That is true except I am saying that our conscience plus objectivity will always bring us back to the same principles, God's principles. And if you look at history, people always seem to come back to the same principles. It is when people's consciences are destroyed by arrogance and subjectivity enter's people's thinking that people abandon these laws. Respecting God's authority in such laws is the only sure way that society as a whole will continue adhering to them.

I thought we were going to move on and quit bashing Christianity?But since you brought it up, the word "kill" in this passage is in the criminal sense, in other words murder.It is used 42 times as in the sense of murder, only 6 times as kill in the KJV. specific and yet amgiguous? cannot be understood rationally? [qs]

The KJV is the only version I am aware of that translates ratsach "kill" in this passage. All the other versions say murder. It is clear the intent of this word from the Hebrew and Septuigent.It is a pastor/teacher's job to guard his congregation against misinterpretations like this one.It is also the believer's and pastor's duty to "study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth."Come on, Jar! Why must I continually explain principles of Christianity to YOU, a professing Christian (I don't even know if I can call you that since you do not even say "Jesus Christ is Lord")? You are so wise in your eyes, yet you do not care to learn the most basic doctrines of Christianity? No! Virtually impossible??? Only if you are lazy or have your own agenda you are trying to shape it to. If it were virtually impossible, Christianty would not even be here and certainly not be so widely accepted.

Thank you for your reply. Those who claim to love their wives and beat them are fragmented and arrogant. I don't know what their definition of love is, but
1 Corinthians 13:4 says Love is patient, love is KIND. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not PROUD. It is not RUDE, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily ANGERED, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always PROTECTS, always trusts, always hopes, always persevers. Love never fails.Take this passage and the passage that commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church and you can obviously classify spousal abuse as immoral. Not to mention all of the other passages that deal with relationships.Or take Job. He is sitting in ashes poking at his sores with a piece of broken pottery after having lost everything, his wife says to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity??? Why don't you curse God and die!"
Job did not slap her and say, "You bitch!" He said, "You speak AS a foolish woman would speak."Stoning was the capital punishment used in that day for the most severe crimes. We are NOT to gossip, slander, judge etc... other PEOPLE, not ideas. We can discuss religions ethics morals etc... all we want. Bible doctrine is for the purpose of discernment so that we may judge correctly between ideas and uphold the truth. We are to treat our neighbors with virtue love. When I am around friends or acquaintances who talk about getting some from some chick the other night or getting wasted or start gossiping about someone else, I don't say anything at all. I treat them as I treat everyone. If I am given the opportunity, I will gently tactfully and cooly let my thoughts on such matters be known. I do not believe anyone would consider me verbally abusive for this. A good admonition no doubt. Are you saying when I learn something from the Bible and apply it to life I'm really just applying what I already knew from observing society? Sorry, doesn't work. The fact that all objective conscientious people come to approximately the same conclusions about morals points to the fact that they all came from the same source. If ethics were actually evolving, you would have new principles forming and old ones dying; the history books would be filled with "transition fossils" of moral codes. Yet the oldest ones are still just as good and very similar to the ones being used today.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-30-2004 11:12 PM

Parts of the Bible contain direct quotations from God about what is right and wrong e.g. the ten commandments. Parts of the Bible contain proverbs written by wise men like solomon who spent most of their lives seeking wisdom. These parts you could say they are finding ethics by evaluating life just like Buddhists do. They have all found elements of the same moral truth. Please explain these. Well morals aren't just converging throughout history. We have good moral systems as far back as history goes. We have bad moral systems as far back as history goes. The pattern is cyclical. Well I believe ethics are morals between people. I think morals include personal thoughts and actions as well as those that affect others... So I suppose he is being ethical, but may or may not be moral at the time. If he is out there poaching and needlessly slaughtering wild geese, then I spose he is being immoral. If he is out there enjoying solitude, I spose he's being moral. If his plane crashed leaving him stranded, and he's thinking "F***ing hell, God why did you do this to me!", I spose he's being immoral. If he's out there painting a picture thats cool. If he's out there looking at porn, thats not cool. This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-30-2004 11:33 PM