Heaven seems awful 2 me-"Theist laughs at loudly & with great cruelty"

[TheRocketSurgeon]

 I agree with all you're saying, except for one thing, I personally can't see how someone who is a Christian could traffick children, one coming to the truth out of such a life must realize that they can't treat other humans that way especially children.

I was just presenting a theoretical case, but not without precedent. After his conversion, John Newton didn't walk away from the slave trade immediately but rather initially only resolved to treat the slaves humanely.  His growth into a great abolitionist took some time. While repentance happens the instant we turn our eyes to the Lord and He grants us our salvation without hesitation, the regeneration of hearts and the renewing of minds both take time.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer him, Chad, as I found the arguments so infuriating and simplistic that I decided to bow out on answering the inane questions he put to me.

However, I should point out that you're both giving too little credence to the concept of "True Christian", with the whole "changed hearts" thing. While I understand that the changed heart is the point of Christian doctrine, you must understand that a HUGE percentage of the roughly 3/4ths of the USA who are Christians are "pew-warmers", meaning that they were raised in the tradition, believe in God and that Jesus is the Son of God, and go to church on occasion (sometimes, just on Christmas and Easter), but don't do much to practice their faith in an outgoing way throughout most of their daily lives. 

Think of all the mafia movie scenes where these professional assassins sit together and pray over their meals, do the sign of the cross, and then start to discuss who needs to die next, over the meal. Given the overwhelming numbers of people in this country who are Christian, I'd wager the number of lapsed/backslid Christians who commit such crimes is significantly higher than that of nonbelievers.

So not only are you insulting us with the whole "Well TRUE Christians™ can't do this, so it must be the atheists" type of thinking, you're disobeying Jesus by focusing on the mote in our eye while ignoring the plank in your own. When you complicate it by saying "they [atheists] have no moral basis for not doing this", you're moving from blindness to bigotry.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I appreciate you taking the time to answer him [GC]…

And I’m glad you noticed. When I feel it is appropriate I will also take issue with the posts of believers.

…you're both giving too little credence to the concept of "True Christian", with the whole "changed hearts" thing. While I understand that the changed heart is the point of Christian doctrine, you must understand that a HUGE percentage of the roughly 3/4ths of the USA who are Christians are "pew-warmers",…

The church doors are open to all, even atheists and unrepentant sinners. The observation that many church-goers are either unrepentant or in various states of regeneration is obvious but trivial.

So not only are you insulting us with the whole "Well TRUE Christians™ can't do this, so it must be the atheists" type of thinking, you're disobeying Jesus by focusing on the mote in our eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

Unfortunately far too many believers talk in church-speak. TRUE can mean either acceptance of sound doctrine or it could mean conformance to what is right and proper conduct for a Christian. When a believer says that someone is not a “true” Christian it could mean one of three things: 1) unorthodox doctrines, like Mormonism or 2) unrepentant cultural Christians that go through the motions without actually accepting doctrine or 3) the unregenerate Christians whose will to obey doctrine hasn’t yet caught-up with their conviction that Christian doctrine is true.

In the case of category 1, they are not true Christians because their deviance from orthodoxy leads them to hold to the standards of behavior that are not right and proper, like legalism. Category 2, are tacit unbelievers even though they may accidentally conform to Christian standards of right living, they disobey when it suits them. In reality all the rest of us Christians are in Category 3. Part of being a Christian is knowing that we are sinners and no one can conform to the perfect example of our Lord and Savior.

When you complicate it by saying "they [atheists] have no moral basis for not doing this", you're moving from blindness to bigotry.

All that means is that if there are no moral absolutes, as some atheists say, then any semblance of moral behavior is merely accidental, like the unrepentant Christians in Category 2. It doesn’t necessarily mean that in the eyes of Christians atheists are any more sinful than anyone else.

[Godscreated]

 I agree with all you're saying, except for one thing, I personally can't see how someone who is a Christian could traffick children, one coming to the truth out of such a life must realize that they can't treat other humans that way especially children.

I was just presenting a theoretical case, but not without precedent. After his conversion, John Newton didn't walk away from the slave trade immediately but rather initially only resolved to treat the slaves humanely.  His growth into a great abolitionist took some time. While repentance happens the instant we turn our eyes to the Lord and He grants us our salvation without hesitation, the regeneration of hearts and the renewing of minds both take time.

 Different times and different circumstances, today the world doesn't accept slavery as a norm, it was different then. I think that if he had been trafficking children into sexual slavery he would have relented quickly. I understand that Christian growth takes time, yet Jesus told people to go and sin no more. We don't differ on this subject we see things happening a little differently.

GC

[Godscreated]

I don't understand why one cant deny Gods existence and then be saved if they change their mind (or lack of belief) later.

Could you elaborate, GC?

 People who deny God before they are saved can and are saved through the calling of the Father, the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the persons acceptance of Christ and what He has done for us. However there is a verse in Revelation and I don't have it at hand at this moment, says that those who once believed and then denied their belief and Christ can not be saved again. There is some verses in Romans that speak to God giving people a reprobate/debased mind so they can't understand. Romans 1:18-32. These verses are for those who deny God and willfully sin without regard to God or others. Read them if you wish, they give details.

GC

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The church doors are open to all, even atheists and unrepentant sinners. The observation that many church-goers are either unrepentant or in various states of regeneration is obvious but trivial.

Unfortunately far too many believers talk in church-speak. TRUE can mean either acceptance of sound doctrine or it could mean conformance to what is right and proper conduct for a Christian. When a believer says that someone is not a “true” Christian it could mean one of three things: 1) unorthodox doctrines, like Mormonism or 2) unrepentant cultural Christians that go through the motions without actually accepting doctrine or 3) the unregenerate Christians whose will to obey doctrine hasn’t yet caught-up with their conviction that Christian doctrine is true.

In the case of category 1, they are not true Christians because their deviance from orthodoxy leads them to hold to the standards of behavior that are not right and proper, like legalism. Category 2, are tacit unbelievers even though they may accidentally conform to Christian standards of right living, they disobey when it suits them. In reality all the rest of us Christians are in Category 3.  Part of being a Christian is knowing that we are sinners and no one can conform to the perfect example of our Lord and Savior.

Respectfully, I must disagree with you that it is "obvious but trivial", at least from the perspective of a member of a loose group who are often accused of immorality and worse, with the "what is your basis"-derived arguments... particularly in this case, where we're talking about something so awful as sex slavery.

Though I don't think they fit quite as neatly into categories as you suggest, I concur with your assessment about the various types of Christian, especially the "by habit" Christians, who are just going to church, praying, etc, out of family and social tradition, but who walk out of the church and fail to apply any of the beliefs of the church to their everyday lives. Practically ever sermon that has ever been spoken covers that issue, at some point! So for him to say that "it cannot be Christians" raised my ire, since it is both prejudiced and dishonest, and doesn't withstand even the most cursory examination.

Certainly I agree with GC and with you that such practices are not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, nor should they be something someone who claims to follow his teachings is capable of doing, whether Jesus is divine or not. But that's a huge step away from what GC said, above.

All that means is that if there are no moral absolutes, as some atheists say, then any semblance of moral behavior is merely accidental, like the unrepentant Christians in Category 2. It doesn’t necessarily mean that in the eyes of Christians atheists are any more sinful than anyone else.

Not quite what it means. We've tried to explain to you that moral behavior is a social species issue, that it is seen in social animals as well, and that only humans have tried to assert that their particular belief-set from their particular tribe is actually the Ultimate Morality™. What you're really doing is using a divine authorship claim to bolster the social moral structure put together by the ancient Israelites, as modified by Paul (et al) when those beliefs were shaped by Greco-Roman influence. You're saying that a book (any book!) contains a Direct From God List of Morals, and we're saying that is hardly a surprising claim for authors in that day and age, but we know a lot more about how the human brain and societies work, now, and should probably base our moral reasoning on what we've learned-- one of the things we've learned is that slavery is bad, you shouldn't own other people, m'kay?-- instead of what the ancients thought. But that takes a lot of thinking about things, and some people prefer the pre-digested version, claiming to have been given The One True Morality™ from God Almighty™ directly through His Prophets.

For those of us who take a more nuanced approach to the idea of moral and ethical reasoning, such an argument borders on the ridiculous... but it is insulting to those of us who do bother to think about this, to develop that sort of nuanced approach to the complex subject of human morality, and to hold to those values in our lives as best we can, only to be told that we're immoral for failing to follow Tribe #12785's particular rule-set (which we find immoral in many ways). I appreciate that you're willing to recognize that, statistically, we are much less likely to commit crimes (prison population study) and that our children being raised godless actually show a higher rate of empathy and decency toward other children, when you say it "doesn't necessarily mean" we are more sinful.

But the fact is that most Christians don't see us as anything but minions of Satan, or amoral agents of selfishness and evil. That is what GC was implying, there... clearly, to him, because of the magical transformation of Christianity, only "nonbelievers" could possibly do such an awful thing. That's how he thinks of us. That's why we thank him for showing us of what horrible bigotry Christianity is too often comprised, so we can warn others by his example to give up religious-magical thinking and learn to form a moral system based on reason.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I feel the need to add that when I say "most Christians don't see", above, what I means is that most of them accept terrible stereotypes and don't bother to get to know us as people to learn that we're not necessarily what their preachers told them about us.

You did, and we thank you for it.

GC refuses to, and that was the point of my "fail" comment, before.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Respectfully, I must disagree with you that it is "obvious but trivial", at least from the perspective of a member of a loose group who are often accused of immorality and worse, with the "what is your basis"-derived arguments…

Let us agree to disagree on that one. Because I am speaking in the abstract and clearly you are expressing personal feelings. I do not want to invalidate your sincere feelings or attempt to reinterpret your experiences.

We've tried to explain to you that moral behavior is a social species issue, that it is seen in social animals as well, and that only humans have tried to assert that their particular belief-set from their particular tribe is actually the Ultimate Morality™.

Many animal species demonstrate social behaviors according to their evolved nature. Likewise Man also acts according to his nature as a social animal. So while I acknowledge your point that moral behavior is in part derived from our nature as a social species, I maintain that it is also informed by Man’s vastly more developed rational capacity that allows him to over-ride instinctual imperatives and/or guide them toward their proper ends.

What you're really doing is using a divine authorship claim to bolster the social moral structure put together by the ancient Israelites, as modified by Paul (et al) when those beliefs were shaped by Greco-Roman influence. You're saying that a book…contains a Direct From God List of Morals…

That may be true of those who believe in divine command. I say that the commands and ordinances given by special revelation are topical in nature and conform to the overarching principles of natural law found within sacred Scripture. Morality is based on virtue, conformity to Man’s highest nature as explicitly revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, but also partially available to pagans by reason alone. Some other Christians disagree. I have my proof-texts while they have theirs.

But the fact is that most Christians don't see us as anything but minions of Satan, or amoral agents of selfishness and evil.

Most? Perhaps that is what your personal experience tells you. As for me, I do not think that atheists as-such have any diabolical plan to destroy public morals, corrupt the young, etc. Most go along to get along until provoked by the outlandish pronouncements and/or over-reactive behavior of some Christians. I say this as respectfully as I can. In their zeal, activist atheist groups (like Freedom From Religion) and adamant left-wing secularists (like the Frankfort School) serve as the unwitting tools Satan uses to undermine the intellectual foundations of liberal democracy such as the belief in inherent human dignity and inalienable rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well what else would you expect from tools of satan, to whom morality is only partially available?

[The Valkyrie]

Well what else would you expect from tools of satan, to whom morality is only partially available?

That reminds me, I have to go out and buy a "tool" of Satan...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Most? Perhaps that is what your personal experience tells you. As for me, I do not think that atheists as-such have any diabolical plan to destroy public morals, corrupt the young, etc. Most go along to get along until provoked by the outlandish pronouncements and/or over-reactive behavior of some Christians. I say this as respectfully as I can. In their zeal, activist atheist groups (like Freedom From Religion) and adamant left-wing secularists (like the Frankfort School) serve as the unwitting tools Satan uses to undermine the intellectual foundations of liberal democracy such as the belief in inherent human dignity and inalienable rights.

Well, you know I can't agree on this last paragraph, since I don't see the FFRF (and don't actually know what the Frankfort School is) as being any of the things you just described, but the rest of your response was exceptionally well-stated, so the Kudos goes for that.

The FFRF is winning their lawsuits because the Christians who have tried to insinuate their sub-culture into a dominating force within the secular parts of our nation (public lands, etc, paid for by my godless tax dollars) frequently step over the line in their zeal. The FFRF pushes back against that zealotry... it does not make them zealots, except in the eyes of the actual zealots they're trying to resist.

I know your argument about the historical foundations of liberal democracy, and I don't entirely disagree. But I also think you tend to overstate the importance of the religious upon the Enlightenment principles that turned Medieval thinking into modern thinking, in the sense that most of the transformations we take for granted now (equality for women, for instance) were heavily resisted by the religious conservatives, and railed against by church leaders of various sorts. Even today, we see the same slow march toward progress -- and by progress I mean "the belief in inherent human dignity and inalienable rights" -- being resisted by the religious conservative culture, decrying the "demise" of our civilization, as they have always done, at each step, only to be proved dead wrong.

I'm sure you, as I do, still have old relatives clinging to their outdated assertions that race-mixing is going to be detrimental to "good Christian society!!", even though not many people today think of that as a religious (or righteous) claim. I'm sure that he (the great-uncle to whom I refer) would call pro-miscegenationists the "unwitting tools of Satan", as well.

Yes, I have personal experience with this. As do many, many, many of us. It's such a common thing among us that it's clearly a phenomenon in our culture for the religious to lie to their fellow congregants about the nature of atheists. After all, we're stopping them from doing whatever they want to do-- they put up crucifixes in public parks, as if they are shrines to their personal religion, and then whine when we ask them to take it down, then sue them to force them to comply with the (secular!) federal laws on the subject. When we ask them to stop trying to theocratize the nation (however well-intentioned they may be in doing so), they call us the ones who are destroying civilization. This is exactly the phenomenon I'm talking about. It's much more than personal feelings-- it's happening to us endlessly, constantly, and is everywhere you look if you'll just look, or just listen.