Morality of Christians vs. Non-Christians

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Like I've said all along, "The world would be a much better place if people actually followed the teachings of Jesus."

I don't remember anyone having any disagreement with you about this point.[/b]

Please reread my post. I didn't say that anyone did.

That said, unfortunately there seem to be many who supercede the teachings of Jesus, i.e. the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in the flesh, with the teachings of Paul and others. In effect, they follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus.

For example, if I remember correctly you took these words of Jesus and inserted the word "habitually" within "who commits" to completely change the meaning of His statement:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever."
How can one actually follow the teachings of Jesus when they are changed to fit the teachings of Paul and others?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please reread my post. I didn't say that anyone did.

That said, unfortunately there seem to be many who supercede the teachings of Jesus, i.e. the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in the flesh, with the teachings of Paul and others. In effect, they follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus.

For example, if I remember co low the teachings of Jesus when they are changed to fit the teachings of Paul and others?

Did you notice in George Barna's research that those Christians who specifically believed in "salvation by faith, not by works" were the only ones who predominantly lived good lives? Whereas the "Notional Christians", who do not actually believe in salvation according to God's grace, lived nominal Christian lives indistinguishable from the lives of non-believers?

Interesting, eh?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please reread my post. I didn't say that anyone did.

That said, unfortunately there seem to be many who supercede the teachings of Jesus, i.e. the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in the flesh, with the teachings of Paul and others. In effect, they follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus.

For example, if I remember co ...[text shortened]... low the teachings of Jesus when they are changed to fit the teachings of Paul and others?

How can one actually follow the teachings of Jesus when they are changed to fit the teachings of Paul and others?

You obviously have yet to understand that the disciples were taught by Christ Himself, and further, that Christ told His disciples before His death that the Holy Spirit would come to them and "guide [them] into all truth" (John 16:13). The disciples, who wrote the New Testament, were guided by the Holy Spirit just as Jesus said they would be, "into all truth." Therefore, their testimony is true. This is the case whether you believe it or not.

You also have yet to understand that Paul's writings were accepted by the apostles and that Paul and the rest of Christ's disciples were in harmony with one another on all essential doctrine. The early Christians, Holy Spirit led, Christ instructed, obviously would have much council for you regarding your mistaken belief that Christ taught a form of sinless perfectionism.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Barna's quote which seems to suggest that there are no discernible differences between Christians and non-Christians in terms of their moral lives is in reference to the Christian populace in general, which includes those who merely call themselves Christians yet do not know or understand Christian belief nor what it means to be a Christian.

The Barna ]

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=315

First of all, keep in mind what Mark Twain said about "statistics":
"There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics."

You're going down a slippery slope here. It seems you are going out of your way to redefine the word "Christian". I mean, one could just as easily define a "real Christian" as someone who actually follows the teachings of Jesus, i.e. walks His walk - not those who merely call themselves Christian. In that case, I'd think all "Christians" would be perfectly moral.

Another thing to consider is that if "evangelicals" are indeed so much more moral than non-Christians, this would mean that "Christians(less evangelicals)" would have to be that much less moral than non-Christians for Christians and non-Christians to be equal.

What is also interesting is that Barna cites "more than 70 other moral behaviors" that are studied in the Dallas Morning News article, yet only eight are referenced here.

One of the behaviors cited is "retaliating". From what I remember, a very high percentage (over 70% ) of evangelicals believe in the death penalty. Seems like having a belief in the death penalty should score in the "retaliating" category. Of course maybe the Barna definition of evangelical would yield a different percentage.

It's difficult to know how objective Barna is. However, it seems unlikely that he has a bias to show Christians as no more moral than non-Christians.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
First of all, keep in mind what Mark Twain said about "statistics":
"There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics."

You're going down a slippery slope here. It seems you are going out of your way to redefine the word "Christian". I mean, one could just as easily define a "real Christian" as someone who actually follows the teaching ...[text shortened]... at he has a bias to show Christians as no more moral than non-Christians.

It's interesting that you are suddenly disparaging the findings of The Barna Group and questioning George Barna's objectivity now that they are shown to no longer support your case.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]How can one actually follow the teachings of Jesus when they are changed to fit the teachings of Paul and others?

You obviously have yet to understand that the disciples were taught by Christ Himself, and further, that Christ told His disciples before His death that the Holy Spirit would come to them and "guide [them] into all truth" (John 16:1 for you regarding your mistaken belief that Christ taught a form of sinless perfectionism.[/b

[/b]You obviously have yet to understand that Jesus did not teach that the teachings of Paul's or any others were to supercede His own.

You need to ask yourself why Jesus would teach something contrary to what the Holy Spirit would later "guide" Paul and others to. Do you believe Jesus was that ignorant? If Paul and the others unerringly followed the guidance of Holy Spirit they would have stopped committing sin. From what I've read, it doesn't seem that this was the case. It's one thing to be "guided". It's a very different thing to actually follow.

The early Christians would then have had much different council than Jesus:
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Once again, "The world would be a much better place if people actually followed the teachings of Jesus."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It's interesting that you are suddenly disparaging the findings of The Barna Group and questioning George Barna's objectivity now that they are shown to no longer support your case.

Why don't you address the points of my post instead of just making a baseless insinuation?

For the most part, I was pointing out possible flaws in YOUR interpretation of the article.

For one, you have pulled out statistics from a limited study and tried to demonstrate that the findings of the Barna Group do not support my case. Are you asserting that you are better at interpreting Barna's statistics than he is? You seem to have arrived at a very different conclusion.

For another my question of bias was largely aimed at the category of "retaliating" and whether or not the death penalty was considered for that category. If it had, it seems the number (which I don't think was included in that article) would have been quite large.

Also, you evidently missed where I stated, "However, it seems unlikely that he has a bias to show Christians as no more moral than non-Christians."

Are you an example of an "evangelical"? Doesn't seem like you would have fared well in Barna's study in the honesty department.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Here is another article of findings by the Barna Group which is quite revealing:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=164
__________

Jesus taught that Christians would be recognizable by their distinctive behavior, but only a small percentage of those who identified themselves as Christians actually stand out discernib ...[text shortened]... ection of Jesus Christ and the grace extended to people through a relationship with Christ).

Interesting how many of these weren't included in the teachings of Jesus so far as I know:
(2) believe they will go to heaven after death because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior
(6) believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works
(8) assert that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches

Plus a couple others that are questionable.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You obviously have yet to understand that Jesus did not teach that the teachings of Paul's or any others were to supercede His own.

You need to ask yourself why Jesus would teach something contrary to what the Holy Spirit would later "guide" Paul and others to. Do you believe Jesus was that ignorant? If Paul and the others unerringly followed the ...[text shortened]... d would be a much better place if people actually followed the teachings of Jesus."[/b]

The fact that no one in the history of Christianity has managed to be perfectly sinless is evidence enough that you've misunderstood Jesus' teaching entirely.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why don't you address the points of my post instead of just making a baseless insinuation?

For the most part, I was pointing out possible flaws in YOUR interpretation of the article.

For one, you have pulled out statistics from a limited study and tried to demonstrate that the findings of the Barna Group do not support my case. Are you asserting th ...[text shortened]... esn't seem like you would have fared well in Barna's study in the honesty department.

Also, you evidently missed where I stated, "However, it seems unlikely that he has a bias to show Christians as no more moral than non-Christians."

I did miss that part. I stopped reading about half-way through your post. My apologies.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why don't you address the points of my post instead of just making a baseless insinuation?

For the most part, I was pointing out possible flaws in YOUR interpretation of the article.

For one, you have pulled out statistics from a limited study and tried to demonstrate that the findings of the Barna Group do not support my case. Are you asserting th ...[text shortened]... esn't seem like you would have fared well in Barna's study in the honesty department.

I presented the Barna Groups findings nearly verbatim regarding the moral superiority of the 'evangelical' group based on the seven different conditions/beliefs in relation to other Christians and non-Christians. I don't know why you're even bothering trying to pick these findings apart as if they are my own interpretations of the data.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You obviously have yet to understand that Jesus did not teach that the teachings of Paul's or any others were to supercede His own.

You need to ask yourself why Jesus would teach something contrary to what the Holy Spirit would later "guide" Paul and others to. Do you believe Jesus was that ignorant? If Paul and the others unerringly followed the ...[text shortened]... d would be a much better place if people actually followed the teachings of Jesus."[/b]

You need to ask yourself why Jesus would teach something contrary to what the Holy Spirit would later "guide" Paul and others to. Do you believe Jesus was that ignorant?
---------ToO--------------------------------------------------

No.....YOU need to realise that Jesus DID teach clearly that the whole truth would be revealed in greater detail after his death by the Holy Spirit. So if it wasn't via the Apostles and Paul , where did it happen? You have always ignored this.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The fact that no one in the history of Christianity has managed to be perfectly sinless is evidence enough that you've misunderstood Jesus' teaching entirely.

Until ToOne?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The fact that no one in the history of Christianity has managed to be perfectly sinless is evidence enough that you've misunderstood Jesus' teaching entirely.

That's quite the assertion. I'd ask you to support it, but I imagine "it's turtles all the way down." 🙂

Just to clarify once again, Jesus had no expectation of an individual having never sinned. However one must stop sinning to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That's quite the assertion. I'd ask you to support it, but I imagine "it's turtles all the way down." 🙂

Just to clarify once again, Jesus had no expectation of an individual having never sinned. However one must stop sinning to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".

I think Ephin meant that no-one has ever been recorded as having been converted and then becoming a Christian and who has then gone on to live a 100% sinless life from that point on.

I certainly don't know of any , do you? If this is so then what does it do to your position?

(Maybe you are the first to do so?)