Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?

[POI]

Seems there exists an unresolved topic amongst Christians... Seems as though the way to salvation is not unified among the many in which I engage. I'd wager they all have a case to support their position(s).?.?

For debate: How does one get to Heaven? What is God's criteria for His selection process? Is it by grace alone, belief/faith alone, works alone; or it is a combination of the three? Or is it maybe other? Please, not only present your case, but please also explain why the other asserted methods are incorrect.

[Capbook]

[Replying to POI in post #815]

For those who died without hearing the gospel. I believe Romans 2:14-15 applicable to them;

They instinctively and intuitively know the difference between right and wrong. This is not referring to the ceremonial law and the civil law. It is referring to the moral law of God contained in the Ten Commandments. They instinctively know they should honor their parents. They instinctively know they should not steal. They instinctively know they should tell the truth. They instinctively know that they should love other people and show compassion to others. They instinctively know it, because God has written it upon their hearts.

So then, answer B) is actually not a requirement?

This website is Debating Christianity, I refer my first answer to Christians which B is a requirement.
Your question is about the non-believers/not Christians who died without hearing the gospel.
They will be judge by their works base in Romans 2:14-15.

Then belief is not a requirement, but works is?

to believers, faith is a requirement.
to who died without hearing the gospel, work applies. Non hearing - unable to believe.
but to all who hear the gospel, faith is a requirement.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #815]

For those who died without hearing the gospel. I believe Romans 2:14-15 applicable to them;

They instinctively and intuitively know the difference between right and wrong. This is not referring to the ceremonial law and the civil law. It is referring to the moral law of God contained in the Ten Commandments. They instinctively know they should honor their parents. They instinctively know they should not steal. They instinctively know they should tell the truth. They instinctively know that they should love other people and show compassion to others. They instinctively know it, because God has written it upon their hearts.

So then, answer B) is actually not a requirement?

This website is Debating Christianity, I refer my first answer to Christians which B is a requirement.
Your question is about the non-believers/not Christians who died without hearing the gospel.
They will be judge by their works base in Romans 2:14-15.

Then we get the elephant in the room. If God wanted people saved (to heaven) then, if works, not Faith could save, (given some never heard what they were supposed to believe) then not loving God or not believing in Jesus is not in itself a barrier to salvation. Thus it would make sense for a god to NOT reveal itself to us, so as not to impose a requirement for salvation not actually needed.

If what you say is valid, it has to be an unrevealed god that exists and all the ones who require 'love'/belief asd a pre -requisite for being saved, must be false gods invented by men.

The only alternative is that the god only revealed Himself or the requirement for salvation in the 1st century and then only to a handful of people The millions before and after could not be saved because they did not know what they had to believe, and that was tough. Moses, Abraham and Ezekiel were all unsaved because they never knew they had to believe in Jesus' resurrection.

No, of course, no Christian can accept that, so it has to be that not knowing Jesus is not a barrier, nor even knowing God, it seems, but only works. But then, logically, anyone who does as well as your average Jesus/God - believer can be saved, unbeliever and wrong believer alike.

That of course won't do, so I imagine the only way out is for the Believer to claim that none does good without the morality of the Bible. As our pal 1213 argues, Abraham was Righteous because he did what God said. But I argued belief in God was needed to make that even valid. Paul adroitly changes that from God - belief to Jesus - belief but implies that the Jewish Law codes cannot save, indeed it rather imposes a burden of extra sin.

But do not the New Laws given in the Gospels impose extra burdens that 'Our fathers were unable to bear' (Acts)? Paul ran into this problem when he implied that Jesusfaith released us from Sin and we were saved by an instinctive Righteousness IF we believed in Jesus (not just God). But in his next letter, he realised that Faith would or could not save those who were also doing sins that even unbelievers were not doing. Works (not sinning/doing good) had to be there as well.

Which is why the word of the Bible has to make people morally good, which they naturally aren't, and undercuts Paul who tacitly admitted that natural good wasn't there, but they had follow given rules (which he tried to do himself). It gets complex and contradictory.

In fact, none of it works, and I for one prefer to accept flawed human instinct, but a desire o see others doing well, as it makes us happy too, and not because we fear losing out on Grace because we didn't follow orders.

Of course I am not so oblivious that I don't know that Christians won't care about any of this - not more than a half minute of doubt and question. It will be waved aside "God knows best. My Faith will save me and never mind anything else".

It is not for nothing that the Gospels advocate the kind of faith that wants us to leave our brains at the church door and dumb, unthinking, Faith is what will save.

[Capbook]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #813]


KJV

Eph 2:10
10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
NIV
For me I would prefer to do good works though sinful in nature, seek guidance from the HS and try to show my love to Jesus. John 14:15

i can relate to that 2nd line (not the first, which is a Faithclaim without evidential force), but I would change a few of the words. "For me I would prefer to do good works though imperfect in nature, seek guidance from the moral tradition and try to show my love for my fellow human, or at least, my best wishes."

Well, that is good but I have a God that I could try to show my love into. Who also teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Well, that is good,if it is a beleif that does that rather than a dislike of anyone who does not believe as they do, and I'drather try to do the good for rational reasons rather than because it is commanded in a book.

As this thread I believe addressed to Christians making us to chose choices of ways to our salvation, I would prefer to base my answers to the book we consider as the Word of God. Cause I believe rational reasons cannot describe the boundary of what is good and bad. I remember a friend reasoned he boxed a schoolmate because he stepped on his shoes.

[Capbook]

[Replying to POI in post #815]

For those who died without hearing the gospel. I believe Romans 2:14-15 applicable to them;

They instinctively and intuitively know the difference between right and wrong. This is not referring to the ceremonial law and the civil law. It is referring to the moral law of God contained in the Ten Commandments. They instinctively know they should honor their parents. They instinctively know they should not steal. They instinctively know they should tell the truth. They instinctively know that they should love other people and show compassion to others. They instinctively know it, because God has written it upon their hearts.

So then, answer B) is actually not a requirement?

This website is Debating Christianity, I refer my first answer to Christians which B is a requirement.
Your question is about the non-believers/not Christians who died without hearing the gospel.
They will be judge by their works base in Romans 2:14-15.

Then we get the elephant in the room. If God wanted people saved (to heaven) then, if works, not Faith could save, (given some never heard what they were supposed to believe) then not loving God or not believing in Jesus is not in itself a barrier to salvation. Thus it would make sense for a god to NOT reveal itself to us, so as not to impose a requirement for salvation not actually needed.

Rom 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Faith is requirement to ALL who hear the gospel, except for those who died and was not able to hear it.
Non hearing/unable to believe.

If what you say is valid, it has to be an unrevealed god that exists and all the ones who require 'love'/belief asd a pre -requisite for being saved, must be false gods invented by men.
That is to the believers.

The only alternative is that the god only revealed Himself or the requirement for salvation in the 1st century and then only to a handful of people The millions before and after could not be saved because they did not know what they had to believe, and that was tough. Moses, Abraham and Ezekiel were all unsaved because they never knew they had to believe in Jesus' resurrection.

Gen 15:6
6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
NIV
They obey God's voice like Abraham because of faith.

No, of course, no Christian can accept that, so it has to be that not knowing Jesus is not a barrier, nor even knowing God, it seems, but only works. But then, logically, anyone who does as well as your average Jesus/God - believer can be saved, unbeliever and wrong believer alike.
Works applicable to those who dies without hearing the gospel.

That of course won't do, so I imagine the only way out is for the Believer to claim that none does good without the morality of the Bible. As our pal 1213 argues, Abraham was Righteous because he did what God said. But I argued belief in God was needed to make that even valid. Paul adroitly changes that from God - belief to Jesus - belief but implies that the Jewish Law codes cannot save, indeed it rather imposes a burden of extra sin.

6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
NIV
Obeying the Law cannot save, because you are already saved by the grace of God through faith good works/law keeping is the result of being saved.

But do not the New Laws given in the Gospels impose extra burdens that 'Our fathers were unable to bear' (Acts)? Paul ran into this problem when he implied that Jesusfaith released us from Sin and we were saved by an instinctive Righteousness IF we believed in Jesus (not just God). But in his next letter, he realised that Faith would or could not save those who were also doing sins that even unbelievers were not doing. Works (not sinning/doing good) had to be there as well.
Good works is the result of being saved. Bad works salvation lost.

Which is why the word of the Bible has to make people morally good, which they naturally aren't, and undercuts Paul who tacitly admitted that natural good wasn't there, but they had follow given rules (which he tried to do himself). It gets complex and contradictory.
Man's sinful nature can't do good but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit we may not sin if we don't chose our own desires. Sinless is God's work not by man.

In fact, none of it works, and I for one prefer to accept flawed human instinct, but a desire o see others doing well, as it makes us happy too, and not because we fear losing out on Grace because we didn't follow orders.

Of course I am not so oblivious that I don't know that Christians won't care about any of this - not more than a half minute of doubt and question. It will be waved aside "God knows best. My Faith will save me and never mind anything else".

It is not for nothing that the Gospels advocate the kind of faith that wants us to leave our brains at the church door and dumb, unthinking, Faith is what will save.

Yes. Faith is what will save for the believers.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #813]


KJV

Eph 2:10
10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
NIV
For me I would prefer to do good works though sinful in nature, seek guidance from the HS and try to show my love to Jesus. John 14:15

i can relate to that 2nd line (not the first, which is a Faithclaim without evidential force), but I would change a few of the words. "For me I would prefer to do good works though imperfect in nature, seek guidance from the moral tradition and try to show my love for my fellow human, or at least, my best wishes."

Well, that is good but I have a God that I could try to show my love into. Who also teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Well, that is good,if it is a beleif that does that rather than a dislike of anyone who does not believe as they do, and I'drather try to do the good for rational reasons rather than because it is commanded in a book.

As this thread I believe addressed to Christians making us to chose choices of ways to our salvation, I would prefer to base my answers to the book we consider as the Word of God. Cause I believe rational reasons cannot describe the boundary of what is good and bad. I remember a friend reasoned he boxed a schoolmate because he stepped on his shoes.

Yes, I get that. it is undeniable that morality is a problem. It is oft - observed that it has no universal basis, like, say, geometry or gravity; and yet it seems uncannily basic to all humanity...but then so is the bad, the wars, the crime, the exploitation of...pretty well anyone we can. So the origin is of species."If you think we came from apes, you're going to behave like an ape". We did and we do. We try to devise a moral system to work to and a way of enforcing it. 'Play nice' is more of an objective than a method and the celestial CCTV is clearly not effective with those who think a quick confession of some self - justification will excuse them desired "I may be a sinner, but I'm forgiven"

No, either as a moral code or as a way of coercing the people to be Good Citizens, the Bible does not work, and never did.

I believe and suggest that understanding our morals as instinct - based and socially sophisticated and accepting that it doesn't have a quick (religious) fix is better than pretending that Religious morality works. I reckon it is not only true, but better. Before we can cure ourselves of evil, we need to understand what causes the symptoms and we have to stop telling ourselves it's evil spirits and can be cured by fasting and prayer.

[Replying to Capbook in post #844]

You posted "Yes. Faith is what will save for the believers." as well as apparently interleaving your responses with my post. That isn't the way to do it as it looks like amending my post, which is a no - no, I don't want to see you get dinged.No, it will not make an argument to just post faithclaims like 'Faith will save'. That contributes nothing to the debate.

[Capbook]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #813]


KJV

Eph 2:10
10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
NIV
For me I would prefer to do good works though sinful in nature, seek guidance from the HS and try to show my love to Jesus. John 14:15

i can relate to that 2nd line (not the first, which is a Faithclaim without evidential force), but I would change a few of the words. "For me I would prefer to do good works though imperfect in nature, seek guidance from the moral tradition and try to show my love for my fellow human, or at least, my best wishes."

Well, that is good but I have a God that I could try to show my love into. Who also teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Well, that is good,if it is a beleif that does that rather than a dislike of anyone who does not believe as they do, and I'drather try to do the good for rational reasons rather than because it is commanded in a book.

As this thread I believe addressed to Christians making us to chose choices of ways to our salvation, I would prefer to base my answers to the book we consider as the Word of God. Cause I believe rational reasons cannot describe the boundary of what is good and bad. I remember a friend reasoned he boxed a schoolmate because he stepped on his shoes.

Yes, I get that. it is undeniable that morality is a problem. It is oft - observed that it has no universal basis, like, say, geometry or gravity; and yet it seems uncannily basic to all humanity...but then so is the bad, the wars, the crime, the exploitation of...pretty well anyone we can. So the origin is of species."If you think we came from apes, you're going to behave like an ape". We did and we do. We try to devise a moral system to work to and a way of enforcing it. 'Play nice' is more of an objective than a method and the celestial CCTV is clearly not effective with those who think a quick confession of some self - justification will excuse them desired "I may be a sinner, but I'm forgiven"

No, either as a moral code or as a way of coercing the people to be Good Citizens, the Bible does not work, and never did.

I believe and suggest that understanding our morals as instinct - based and socially sophisticated and accepting that it doesn't have a quick (religious) fix is better than pretending that Religious morality works. I reckon it is not only true, but better. Before we can cure ourselves of evil, we need to understand what causes the symptoms and we have to stop telling ourselves it's evil spirits and can be cured by fasting and prayer.

I wonder why you based your ideals on rational reason as you say problematic morality.
As for me Bible believing Christians had better knowledge of what is good and what is bad. So I believe the Bible does work.
We can't do good as we are sinner in nature that always have sinful desires.
And only those who are willing to obey God's guidance through the Holy Spirit can live a pure faultless life,
to the merits of God and not man.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #813]


KJV

Eph 2:10
10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
NIV
For me I would prefer to do good works though sinful in nature, seek guidance from the HS and try to show my love to Jesus. John 14:15

i can relate to that 2nd line (not the first, which is a Faithclaim without evidential force), but I would change a few of the words. "For me I would prefer to do good works though imperfect in nature, seek guidance from the moral tradition and try to show my love for my fellow human, or at least, my best wishes."

Well, that is good but I have a God that I could try to show my love into. Who also teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Well, that is good,if it is a beleif that does that rather than a dislike of anyone who does not believe as they do, and I'drather try to do the good for rational reasons rather than because it is commanded in a book.

As this thread I believe addressed to Christians making us to chose choices of ways to our salvation, I would prefer to base my answers to the book we consider as the Word of God. Cause I believe rational reasons cannot describe the boundary of what is good and bad. I remember a friend reasoned he boxed a schoolmate because he stepped on his shoes.

Yes, I get that. it is undeniable that morality is a problem. It is oft - observed that it has no universal basis, like, say, geometry or gravity; and yet it seems uncannily basic to all humanity...but then so is the bad, the wars, the crime, the exploitation of...pretty well anyone we can. So the origin is of species."If you think we came from apes, you're going to behave like an ape". We did and we do. We try to devise a moral system to work to and a way of enforcing it. 'Play nice' is more of an objective than a method and the celestial CCTV is clearly not effective with those who think a quick confession of some self - justification will excuse them desired "I may be a sinner, but I'm forgiven"

No, either as a moral code or as a way of coercing the people to be Good Citizens, the Bible does not work, and never did.

I believe and suggest that understanding our morals as instinct - based and socially sophisticated and accepting that it doesn't have a quick (religious) fix is better than pretending that Religious morality works. I reckon it is not only true, but better. Before we can cure ourselves of evil, we need to understand what causes the symptoms and we have to stop telling ourselves it's evil spirits and can be cured by fasting and prayer.

I wonder why you based your rational reason on problematic morality.
Bible believing Christians had better knowledge of what is good and what is bad. The Bible does work.
To be good citizens, we need the guidance of God thru the Holy Spirit.
We can't do good as we are sinful in nature that always have sinful desires.

No, I don't buy that. I counter - claim that Christians, believing the Bible, have not in fact been better than those without that morality and in fact have enables d even worse evils by making out that God requires it. The Bible does not work and Christians know it and ignore what they don't care for and just pick what suits them.

To be good citizens we need to keep religion in its' place - out of politics and out of schools - a conclusion that Europe has gradually come to despite not having it in a constitution.

We can of course do good because we as hairless apes have empathy and reciprocity as a number of other animals do. This has been built on and the problem of making social responsibility stick has always been a problem, also for religion. But religion simply shrugs the problem off with a 'later judgement' while social morals tries to find a just way of making ethics stick. Telling people the truth about them rather than fairy tales about a god - given morality should be a good start.

[POI]

Good point. “Theory” belongs to science. “Truth” belongs to philosophy or psychology or religion. But science is useful to them.

You agree that there exists the "truth", and not just your own personal truth, right? Assuming you do, we are exploring what is (the truth), as it relates to <what is the correct path to Heaven?>. I think you'll find, as we continue to explore the claims from the Bible, that (the truth) to this answer is not rationally attainable.

Yes I do….all. Will you choose to respond is the question.

1) Since I asked for God's contact for decades, and never received it, is it possible He is not going to present the choice to me until after I die?
2) What exactly does this choice entail? Meaning, is the presented dichotomy "yes, a) I choose to worship you, or, b) you will destroy me or send me to a place of eternal torment"?
3) If the above dichotomy is a false one, can I instead choose where I may reside, outside of the dichotomy of God's perpetual presence where worship is required <vs> being destroyed or being placed into eternal torment?
4) If God does indeed present this given dichotomy of a) or b), then isn't choosing Him just compulsory?

But you’re defining “grace” as a free ticket to Heaven. I told you God’s definition of “grace” is the ability to do what is right.

I'm instead saying that we all go, because Jesus paved the way. He died for all sinners, and no one is without sin, (including you). Hence, the answer here would be A). Which, of course, raises a whole slew of follow-up Q's.

No, others point out my sins to me from time to time. To them they’re more obvious than to me.

I think you've missed my point here. Are you claiming you are without "sin"? Assuming you are not without 'sin', then (you too) need to be 'transformed' prior to be allowed into a sinless environment. Hence, the answer would logically be A). All need to be "transformed" prior to entry, including you.

This is a superior understanding which is why I enjoy exchanging with you. You are a rare deep thinker.

Thank you. I too find our exchanges enjoyable, productive, and intelligible.

The superior aspect of your thought is the observation that we need to be changed to live in Heaven, a sinless place. Excellent!! That’s exactly why grace is given to those who humble themselves, so that they have the power to DO what is right. A lifetime of this, only accomplished by surrendering and following Jesus, deeply changes a person. They have the power to choose right and come to hate the times they fail. I know of no one but followers of Jesus who become this. Everyone else lives at peace with the wrong they do as the years pass. CS Lewis termed it “making one self fit for Heaven or Hell.” And I do know there’s a Heaven. It’s risky to try to imagine how a follower of Jesus thinks if you aren’t one. It’s too far out of your experience. But i’ve been following the Christ for over 50 years. Changes a woman.

I disagree. No matter how hard one tries, all will remain in "sin". Since all fall short, all need God's help. All need God's "transformation". Try as you might, without being made anew by God, you would logically ruin such a sinless environment upon entry. Hence, maybe the answer is simply A)? Or maybe, as you alluded to above, maybe the answer is B)? But I trust you find, that regardless of which option you pick, they all break the laws of logic.

No, they will be judged by how much they lived up to their own expressed standard or right and wrong. What could be more fair? And He’s the God of the whole earth. I’ve traveled quite a bit and He’s known in other people groups by, naturally, a non-English word.

This answer causes more confusion. You state all are given a choice. Many will never hear of Jesus, and then die. Further, if some are judged, based upon answer C) alone, then why should anyone be a Christian in the first place? All Christians are still "sinners".

It is. If one wants to get clean, one must come under cleansing water.

More confusion... It is logically impossible to be expected to repent to an agency for which one has never heard of... So, I ask again, IS repentance a requirement?

Its conditional. If you don’t like the truth, you’ll never find it.

It's not about what I like or do not like. I'm just trying to find the logical 'truth'. If the answer is A), then it is logically unconditional. And since response/post 758. you have not ruled out this answer as the answer.

Well “faith” is a matter that God measures in a man. It’s not a matter of us deciding which definition he likes. Modern preachers like “accept” because it’s cheap and easy. They’ll be liked for lowering the bar. “Surrender” sounds more ominous and costly.

All I'm saying here is that I consider 'surrendering' to still be encompassed into answer B). So, is answer B) THE answer? Or, is it D)? Or, is it instead A)? Confusion much?

Where does that conclusion come from? God speaks through His word.

And I state the Bible writers are the purveyors of confusion. Hence, the reason we are still unable to get the truth for such a simple question. The more you and I explore, or do a deep dive, the more convoluted things become. Anyone who reads the Bible will see places where answer C) is a requirement. Is it better to ask people not to read the Bible then? Otherwise, C) becomes a minimum requirement. And yet, some of these requirements are logically impossible to fulfill, such as baptism.

First, each man will stand before God and answer as to the choices made while in the body. The standard is what each one expressed as to how he expected others to treat him. What could be more fair?

Then it is not our choice, it's his.

[POI]

to believers, faith is a requirement.
to who died without hearing the gospel, work applies. Non hearing - unable to believe.
but to all who hear the gospel, faith is a requirement.

I already got that. Faith is not THE standard. Why? Apparently, some can still get there without faith. Which means, it's not THE standard. Hence, we can explore answer C). What constitutes THE standard in answer C)? What 'works' and/or 'acts' are required and/or mandatory?

Also, why be a Christian, in the first place, if faith is not required? Why not just perform necessary works/acts?

[Capbook]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #813]


KJV

Eph 2:10
10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
NIV
For me I would prefer to do good works though sinful in nature, seek guidance from the HS and try to show my love to Jesus. John 14:15

i can relate to that 2nd line (not the first, which is a Faithclaim without evidential force), but I would change a few of the words. "For me I would prefer to do good works though imperfect in nature, seek guidance from the moral tradition and try to show my love for my fellow human, or at least, my best wishes."

Well, that is good but I have a God that I could try to show my love into. Who also teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Well, that is good,if it is a beleif that does that rather than a dislike of anyone who does not believe as they do, and I'drather try to do the good for rational reasons rather than because it is commanded in a book.

As this thread I believe addressed to Christians making us to chose choices of ways to our salvation, I would prefer to base my answers to the book we consider as the Word of God. Cause I believe rational reasons cannot describe the boundary of what is good and bad. I remember a friend reasoned he boxed a schoolmate because he stepped on his shoes.

Yes, I get that. it is undeniable that morality is a problem. It is oft - observed that it has no universal basis, like, say, geometry or gravity; and yet it seems uncannily basic to all humanity...but then so is the bad, the wars, the crime, the exploitation of...pretty well anyone we can. So the origin is of species."If you think we came from apes, you're going to behave like an ape". We did and we do. We try to devise a moral system to work to and a way of enforcing it. 'Play nice' is more of an objective than a method and the celestial CCTV is clearly not effective with those who think a quick confession of some self - justification will excuse them desired "I may be a sinner, but I'm forgiven"

No, either as a moral code or as a way of coercing the people to be Good Citizens, the Bible does not work, and never did.

I believe and suggest that understanding our morals as instinct - based and socially sophisticated and accepting that it doesn't have a quick (religious) fix is better than pretending that Religious morality works. I reckon it is not only true, but better. Before we can cure ourselves of evil, we need to understand what causes the symptoms and we have to stop telling ourselves it's evil spirits and can be cured by fasting and prayer.

I wonder why you based your rational reason on problematic morality.
Bible believing Christians had better knowledge of what is good and what is bad. The Bible does work.
To be good citizens, we need the guidance of God thru the Holy Spirit.
We can't do good as we are sinful in nature that always have sinful desires.

No, I don't buy that. I counter - claim that Christians, believing the Bible, have not in fact been better than those without that morality and in fact have enables d even worse evils by making out that God requires it. The Bible does not work and Christians know it and ignore what they don't care for and just pick what suits them.

To be good citizens we need to keep religion in its' place - out of politics and out of schools - a conclusion that Europe has gradually come to despite not having it in a constitution.

We can of course do good because we as hairless apes have empathy and reciprocity as a number of other animals do. This has been built on and the problem of making social responsibility stick has always been a problem, also for religion. But religion simply shrugs the problem off with a 'later judgement' while social morals tries to find a just way of making ethics stick. Telling people the truth about them rather than fairy tales about a god - given morality should be a good start.

A true Bible believing Christian knows what sin is, 1 John 3:4.
Problematic morality does not know what sin is. Even you accept it as problematic, no clear boundary what is good and what is bad.

I agree to separate religion and state politics. And also agree to inform students about the Intelligent Designer of the universe.

Love your neighbor as yourself will enable us to build a good relationship with ourselves as hairless apes that appreciate beauty, and to our God.