(February 16, 2015 at 12:34 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: So, according to the Bible, there is only one unforgivable sin (blaspheming the Holy Spirit). That tautologically means that every other sin is forgivable. So, if I have a moment of weakness and sin, I can ask for forgiveness and repent. Christians will agree with that statement; it's part and parcel to their world view. Now, if I plan to sin knowing that I can ask for forgiveness later, sin, and then ask for forgiveness, the very act of planning to game the system is a forgivable sin. When I ask for forgiveness, all I have to do is apologize both for the sin and for planning to game the system.

Hi RobbyPants
1. if you fake the repentance and the forgiveness, then you still suffer worse consequences. Only if this forgiveness is real does it stop the damage caused from incurring more "debt" or additional weight of sin/karma.

2. the unforgiveable sin is "unforgiveness" so again faking forgiveness is still unforgiveness. if you don't fully repent and don't incure full forgiveness yet, the wrongs can't be corrected yet. only by fully agreeing to invoke forgiveness can God's will enter the situation or relationship and right the wrongs.

Now that is just the spiritual level

3. for the natural level, whatever wrongs you do still have to be remedied by natural and civil/secular laws also laws of science. So if you damage the planet you are still responsible for fixing the degree of damage you cause. forgiveness doesn't mean your physical debts are erased, unless those are forgiven by the people affected. most people require restitution.

So you can be forgiven on the spiritual level of God
and still have PROPORTIONAL debts and damages to face on the natural level to make good with your relations with your neighbor in Christ.

The best symbolism and explanation I've ever heard for this
was from the Lutheran pastor near the university where I graduated.

He said the long vertical bar of the Cross stands for our relationships with God, with Jesus in the center, and there Grace is freely given; there is nothing we can do to EARN the forgiveness we are granted unconditionally. We ask and we receive.

(my notes: And this asking step is done by agreeing to ask for help with Forgiveness, that must be actively consciously and freely chosen, and it can't be faked or it's not real.)

the horizontal bar of the Cross represents man's relationships between neighbors with Jesus in the middle, again as mediator. now here, with the natural laws governing man's relations in society, you may have to EARN the forgiveness of your neighbor. you may have to WORK to pay debts or serve restitution to restore the good faith relations and establish justice.

So people need to know these two are not interchangeable.
just because God forgives you unconditionally by spiritual laws,
doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to harm yourself or your relations with others. even if you harm your relationship with God that affects your integrity and lessens your authority and consistency when enforcing truth and justice with others. so the more consistent you are, the more consistent the authority to enforce justice on both levels where Jesus represents Perfect Justice, joining God and man.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Am I the only one that can't for the life of me decipher Emily's posts? Can someone translate?

(February 19, 2015 at 3:20 pm)emilynghiem Wrote: 1. if you fake the repentance and the forgiveness, then you still suffer worse consequences. Only if this forgiveness is real does it stop the damage caused from incurring more "debt" or additional weight of sin/karma.

Why is it that every theist that responds assumes that the repentance wouldn't be sincere? You can sincerely repent for gaming the system, but gaming the system could be like one of your spiritual weaknesses.

(February 19, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 1:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Within the framework of a moral system that considers 'gaming the system' a moral act, people gaming the system would be moral. A premise you disagree with, but it would not 'fail to separate the moral from the immoral people.' It would simply separate them in a manner you disagree with.

It's not a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of the system failing utterly at its stated purpose. The moral system has X set of actions that it considers good, and Y set of actions that it considers bad, and it offers incentives for the good actions, and disincentives for the bad ones. That's literally the entire point of the system, but you're telling me that contained within set X is a premise that allows you to commit as many actions contained within set Y as you like, while avoiding the disincentives and still gaining the incentives.

You didn't argue that it would make the moral separation correctly, you argued that it wouldn't do it at all. Perhaps I didn't understand your point when you wrote: 'fails to separate the moral from the immoral," [post #21] and you meant "...fails to separate the moral from the immoral people consistently or correctly ." Yes? No? If you meant the latter I do agree with you.

(February 19, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:Outside of the framework of a moral system that considers 'gaming the system' a moral act one can argue that gaming the system is immoral.

But this was never an issue of morality, it's an issue of the efficacy of the system itself. The argument is that, moral or immoral, the presence of the ability to game the system renders the system itself a failure.

Sorry, wrong choice of word. Change my above statement to read: "Outside of the framework of a moral system that considers 'gaming the system' a moral act one can argue that gaming the system is a failure [or ineffective]."

(February 19, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:There hasn't been proper correlation between proving that: gaming the system is an immoral act, Christian morality is a system that views gaming the system as a moral act, and [therefore] Christianity is a poor moral system.

Look above. Look to my last post. All you did was push the conversation to one of morality, rather than efficacy, which you now seem to acknowledge was the original point of the discussion. But a non-sequitur isn't a rebuttal.

If so, then prove:

1. If Christianity teaches gaming the system is a moral act, then Christian morality is an ineffective moral system.
2. Christianity teaches gaming the system is a moral act.
.:/ Christian morality is an ineffective moral system.

[You don't need to further support premise #1 for my sake. Your illustration/explanation from post #24, first response is sufficient to show that a moral system that views 'gaming the system' as a moral act would be an ineffective moral system.]

(February 19, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:I don't think you understand what repentance means. Repentance is turning from your sins. A person turning from their sins cannot be gaming the system [continuing to sin with the knowledge you have been forgiven].

Why not? Are you saying a person cannot rationally allow himself to willingly sin while turning from those sins, despite the bible asserting numerous times that we're all sinners by default, that it's not something we can escape? Pragmatically, the reasonable option seems to be to accept the inherent sinfulness the bible foists upon us all- the bible can't be wrong on that point, after all- and to game the system as a matter of course; you can't have a book that says that sin is this trap that there's no way out of, and then expect people to pretend otherwise.
Besides, a person gaming the system could simply characterize their gaming of that system as a lapse, a sin in itself and genuinely repent for that... while still having gaming the system as a consistent sin they need to repent for. The act of gaming the system does not necessarily entail that repentance would be insincere, and I don't understand why you'd assert otherwise.

Because of the definition of repentance.

---

The statement Lek made:

Quote:No one would come to him and say "I believe you are my savior and I wish to follow you, but I'm really not sorry for my sins and I plan to continue in them."

Is not the same as the statement you're claiming he made:

Quote:once you honestly repent... no more sin!

There is a difference between 'planning to continue in sin' and sinning. To use an imperfect analogy, take 1st degree homicide [premeditated] and manslaughter [spontaneous].

---

(February 19, 2015 at 2:57 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(February 18, 2015 at 2:35 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: A simple way to put it is that "repentance is the result of salvation." It is a necessary result of salvation, but not a prerequisite for it.

So, you can't be repentant until you're saved? If you stop being repentant, does that mean you're no longer saved?

If saved people repent, then an unrepentant person wouldn't be saved.

(February 20, 2015 at 3:44 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(February 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)orangebox21 Wrote: If saved people repent, then an unrepentant person wouldn't be saved.

Can a saved person sin?

Yes.

---

@ emilynghiem

Are you a Christian?

(February 20, 2015 at 4:41 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(February 20, 2015 at 3:44 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: Can a saved person sin?

Yes.

Can they sin intentionally or only "accidentally"? By this, I mean, at the time they're doing it, they weren't thinking about it consciously as a sin. Picture the difference between a person taking God's name in vain when they hit their thumb with a hammer as opposed to them saying it intentionally as part of a conversation.

I've talked so much smack about that dumbass Holy Spirit that I'm fucked. So I've no incentive to even bother repenting, right?

Kind of serious question. Once you do that, the game is up and you might as well all-you-can-sin?

As far as I can tell, yes.