The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?

That’s a damn good point.

You’re a bit off your game, Randy? That was NOT a zombie, unless they are paying more attention to personal hygiene these days. :laughing:

If a non-believer is immoral by birth but becomes moral by belief what does that say about said belief when that now moral person behaves immorally? Apart from the arrogance underpinning the basic belief of TD it is only ignorance that then tries to pin it on God’s chest.

Thanks Randy :wink:

This is big. :astonished:

George MacDonald “followed Plato in thinking that evil was. to a large extent, a result of deprivation and not depravation. Human beings sinned because they did not see the truth clearly, and to have a clear vision of God would mean that they would be so overwhelmed by his love, that all wrongdoing would be immediately set aside. Seeing right was the beginning of acting right, and Christ was the clearest picture of God given to humankind”
-http://www.george-macdonald.com/articles/theology.html

Pelagianism would have been condemned in any day, whether that of Origen or St Paul.

It is my view that each of Adam’s descendants has inherited from Adam and Eve a nature that has a tendency to sin (or do wrong), but CERTAINLY HAS NOT inherited a nature that is totally depraved and can perform no righteous acts.
Last edited by Paidion on Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I believe scripture says we inherited mortality from Adam but from Adam sin came into the world (in general). So this proclivity to sin has been in man from the beginning IMHO.

Since the fall of man, then, it has been mankind’s dilemma that no human can restore his nature to union with God’s grace; it was necessary for God to effect another change in human nature."

I don’t want to get sidetracked but the expression “fall of man” is not a biblical description. Neither is “restore his nature to union with God’s grace” although it sounds lovely.
There are certain choices of belief we must make regarding Christ and God like Jesus is Lord,son of God,died for our sins and rose from the dead for us to be saved.
I really can’t imagine why we s/b incapable of making this kind of choice since it benefits us dramatically? In the bible you can occasionally find expressions that Calvinists use to support “total depravity” but usually they have a local context or it’s hyperbole to make a point.

Two things are worth noting…

1) the “proclivity to sin” WAS clearly there BEFORE it was actualised. 2) For something to gain entrance (in this case “sin”) presupposes its prior existence.

I agree. I think people try to make Adam into something more than he was. As if God left it up to this one man to decide whether all mankind would be sinners or saints. To me he was simply a man, just like the rest of us. Yes,I believe God did leave the choice up to one man whether to be a sinner or a saint, and that one man is you, yourself.

Those who have become mature in the Spirit are to teach and instruct others in the ways of the Lord. A teacher who tells his/her students that they have no brains, should not be a teacher. Likewise, a spiritual teacher would not say, “You have no spirit.”, but instead nurture and teach of the spirit that they have.

Do you suppose such an outwardly pharisaical “moral life” makes that one any more righteous in the sight of God than those living relatively sinfully, heroin addicts, Hell’s Angels, harlots, Hitler, Saul of Tarsus or serial killers?

That does not sound ‘outwardly pharasaical’ to me - it sounds more like a good person. I know people like that.

Generally speaking those who are considered by society/the world to be good people are just so outwardly and superficially. Like the Pharisees.

Do you know the heart of the “good person” & why he is the way he is, or how he would be if his life’s circumstances were different?

Do you suppose such are any more righteous in the sight of God than those living relatively sinfully, heroin addicts, Hell’s Angels, harlots, Hitler, Saul of Tarsus or serial killers?

And we have not defined a “believer”. Is that someone who believes in, what a creed says - like the Nicene or Apostles creed? Or what a mainstream, Christian church teaches? Would Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses be considered believers? Why or why not? And would you classify everyone on this forum - a believer? How EXACTLY do you define a believer?

One who loves God and follows the Golden Rule. We should know them by their fruit.

Here’s an interesting article, I’ve shared today - via email:

Double belonging: Buddhism and Christian faith bit.ly/2xWUfwJ

Well, that’s great that you believe what it says. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence did not believe it—at least did not apply it to his slaves. Jefferson owned several plantations worked by hundreds of slaves. He certainly didn’t believe (at least not in practice) that these slaves were created equal, and that they were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Wiki -
The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

This legislation was promoted by President Thomas Jefferson, who called for its enactment in his 1806 State of the Union Address. He had promoted the idea since the 1770s. It reflected the force of the general trend toward abolishing the international slave trade, which Virginia followed by all the other states had prohibited or restricted since then. South Carolina, however, had reopened its trade. Congress first regulated against in the Slave Trade Act of 1794. The 1807 Act ended the legality of trade with the U.S. However, it was not always well enforced and slaves continued to be smuggled in limited numbers. All the northern states had ended slavery by 1804, but ownership remained legal in all the Southern states. The 1807 law did not change that—it just made importation from abroad a crime. The domestic slave trade within the U.S. was unaffected by the 1807 law. Britain, another major power involved in the Atlantic slave trade, passed the comparable Abolition of the Slave Trade Act that same month.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohi … _of_Slaves

So maybe he changed?