The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?

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?

In general i’m quite positive. Do you see me posting anywhere constantly whining about my problems with thumb in my mouth. But when it comes to topics related to sin i don’t sugar coat it, but declare what Scripture says, whether people like it or not. To not see sin & judgement from Genesis to Revelation, are you reading the Bible with your eyes closed.

Certainly i had a mother who cared enough for her baby boy to feed him. Otherwise i might not be here posting today & be in heaven instead enjoying endless blessings. Even animal mothers care for their young & will defend them by risking their own lives, with a fierce wrath like the jealous God, even unto death. That’s in the nature of beastly fallen animals. Fallen human animals are no exception.

Do you suppose cats that are better mothers are more moral & righteous than the cats who are worse mothers?

Do you suppose superficially moral unbelievers 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?

No, I don’t. But neither do I suppose that superficially moral believers are any more righteous than those you mentioned.

But how about believers and non-believers that are actually moral, and not merely superficially so? I certainly regard them as more righteous in the sight of God than the groups you mentioned.

Are these views based on human reasonings or Scripture?

Well, I reported on this, in another thread here - involving healing:

Well, I went this morning, to the Charismatic Anglican service. Then Father A. was making a rare visit from Wisconsin. To a Catholic church nearby. I got the RC anointing of the sick, the healing touch of of Father A. (who has the gift of healing, and hearing God speak). And the healing touch of the woman, who was healed of brain cancer. For some strange reason, she has been given - the gift of healing.

Very fine day.

And to top it off, tonight AMC will be airing The Walking Dead. And here’s a video of Smash Mouth, singing I’m a Believer at youtu.be/0mYBSayCsH0.

Even Zombies are capable, of loving other people. As this song illustrates at youtu.be/YCVMuevcCvY :smiley:

Poor Origen. I think all that studying of total depravity, hard core - theological determinism and no free will - has warped his mind. He needs to watch some zombie movies - to relax. :laughing:

To the OP…,

I’m not sure what “a moral life” means to the original poster. If it asks whether an unbeliever can live the sort of life we approve of: loving and taking care of family, being loyal to friends and (insofar as it is moral to do so) to his nation and tribe, doing what he can to ease the plight of the poor, sick, persecuted, etc., then I guess I’d say yes. Of course a mentally and emotionally healthy unbeliever can do these things to the degree that society will approve of him (if society is fair.)

OTOH, I’m not sure than ANY of us, believer or unbeliever is capable of living the kind of life (on our own) that God would approve. God’s standards seem to be pretty high. Read the Sermon on the Mount. Do ANY of us do all these things perfectly? Have any of us done all the things Paul lists in his preamble to his famous description of the God kind of love in 1 Cor 13? Yet these things are, according to Paul, nothing but the noise of an “empty barrel” rolling down a hill–maybe with a few lonely left-over items crashing into its sides as it bounces. Without love, none of these things mean anything at all.

NO ONE can live up to this on his own. This is the kind of love that God IS. The Father, through the Holy Spirit conforms us to the image of the Son, who is the exact image of the Father.

I honestly cannot imagine that anyone reaches perfection in this life–I’m sure that we will all (to one degree or another) be saved “as through fire” in the final judgment. So if the righteous are barely saved, what about the ungodly? If we can reach an acceptable (if short of perfect) standard on our own, there would have been no need for Jesus’ atonement.

THAT, of course Origen, generally speaking, is simply nothing other than your own unproven opinion, which is fine we all have one, but you cannot substantiate it. Let me repeat…

:smiley:

Define love.

Does a mother cat love her babies? As i posted to you above & you ignored & i quote myself]:

“Certainly i had a mother who cared enough for her baby boy to feed him. Otherwise i might not be here posting today & be in heaven instead enjoying endless blessings. Even animal mothers care for their young & will defend them by risking their own lives, with a fierce wrath like the jealous God, even unto death. That’s in the nature of beastly fallen animals. Fallen human animals are no exception.”

“Do you suppose cats that are better mothers are more moral & righteous than the cats who are worse mothers?”

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 Jn.2:15)

Define ‘the world’.

Here’s the view of the Apostle Paul, not just an “opinion”, regarding unbelievers (non Christians):

1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

As for the alleged “believer” falling back into sin, there are many passages of Scripture that could - variously - describe that, depending on the circumstances & what’s in the person’s heart, for example:

19holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and thereby shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and turned away from the holy commandment passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

…13The seeds on rocky ground are those who hear the word and receive it with joy, but they have no root. They believe for a season, but in the time of testing, they fall away. 14The seeds that fell among the thorns are those who hear, but as they go on their way, they are choked by the worries, riches, and pleasures of this life, and their fruit does not mature. 15But the seeds on good soil are those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, cling to it, and by persevering produce a crop.

Much of this thread depends primarily, on defining your terms.

What is a believer?
What is a non-believer?
What is a moral life?

When I go to a Christian church…or watch a Christian TV program…they talk about the great love, of our heavenly father and Christ. When I attend a Buddhist mindfulness meditation…at the taucenter.org/ (run by Franciscan sisters), they talk about the great compassion. Yesterday, I was waiting for TV evangelist Joel Osteen - to appear. But before that, they had another Protestant minister on. He talked about Christ’s great compassion for others.

If we don’t define our terms…it’s like trying to have a conversation…where some are talking about Zombies…some are quoting Bible verses - out of context…some are talking about tea…Some about apples…Some about oranges…Etc. And the poor thread reader…is trying to make sense, of it all. :laughing:

If you are implying that animals “love”, as in a mother cat caring (or being ready to die) for her babies, then i’d agree that the human type of animal who is an unbeliever (non Christian) can also “love” in that sense. I suppose that is what the Scriptures refer to as “natural affection”. It isn’t supernatural love, as in Christ’s love or God’s love which is what Christians are commanded to live by.

Did anyone comment on Christ’s parable, of the Good Samaritan? See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan
gotquestions.org/parable-Good-Samaritan.html

Let me quote a bit, from the Calvinist site - Got Questions:

All one needs to do, is to look at media accounts - of the Stephen Paddock (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock) shooting event. Many were both helping and protecting victims. Even while they were being shot at - themselves. I’m sure if someone checked all their backgrounds, many wouldn’t necessarily be Christians. Or even believers in God (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc.)