Admitting You're a Sinner

[Whateverist]

Has anyone ever actually claimed that Dahmer is in Heaven? I see this come up quite often here, yet have never seen any Christian actually say they believe he is. Seems a bit strawman.

 Steve's claim "god is working on the heart" of Christians even as they go on sinning for those who truly seek to give up their sinful ways doesn't amount to much of difference to the people who encounter someone like that.  I have no idea what Dahmer's actual religious affiliation was, it was a hypothetical case.  But my bigger point is that the there is no substantial difference between a morally monstrous xtian or atheist.  What 'God' may be doing in the 'heart' of a xtian 'sinner' is of no consequence to the new victims of the moral monster in either case, and whatever it means for the pie in the sky place is only relevant to those drinking that kool aid. 

[SteveII]

Has anyone ever actually claimed that Dahmer is in Heaven? I see this come up quite often here, yet have never seen any Christian actually say they believe he is. Seems a bit strawman.

 Steve's claim "god is working on the heart" of Christians even as they go on sinning for those who truly seek to give up their sinful ways doesn't amount to much of difference to the people who encounter someone like that.  I have no idea what Dahmer's actual religious affiliation was, it was a hypothetical case.  But my bigger point is that the there is no substantial difference between a morally monstrous xtian or atheist.  What 'God' may be doing in the 'heart' of a xtian 'sinner' is of no consequence to the new victims of the moral monster in either case, and whatever it means for the pie in the sky place is only relevant to those drinking that kool aid. 

Your complaint seem that you think that Christianity gives you a license to sin. It does not because if we are trying to have a relationship with God, intentional sin (especially of the type that you are zeroing in on--the ones that affect other people) is simply not compatible with that desire so one must give. If we cease to desire to have a relationship with God and continue to have an unrepentant attitude about our sins, IMO, you are in traveling down a continuum where at some point God knows your heart and you will lose your salvation (yes, that is what I believe the NT clearly teaches). 

So, conflict solved. There are no such thing as "morally monstrous xtians".

[JackRussell]

 Steve's claim "god is working on the heart" of Christians even as they go on sinning for those who truly seek to give up their sinful ways doesn't amount to much of difference to the people who encounter someone like that.  I have no idea what Dahmer's actual religious affiliation was, it was a hypothetical case.  But my bigger point is that the there is no substantial difference between a morally monstrous xtian or atheist.  What 'God' may be doing in the 'heart' of a xtian 'sinner' is of no consequence to the new victims of the moral monster in either case, and whatever it means for the pie in the sky place is only relevant to those drinking that kool aid. 

Your complaint seem that you think that Christianity gives you a license to sin. It does not because if we are trying to have a relationship with God, intentional sin (especially of the type that you are zeroing in on--the ones that affect other people) is simply not compatible with that desire so one must give. If we cease to desire to have a relationship with God and continue to have an unrepentant attitude about our sins, IMO, you are in traveling down a continuum where at some point God knows your heart and you will lose your salvation (yes, that is what I believe the NT clearly teaches). 

So, conflict solved. There are no such thing as "morally monstrous xtians".

And so in contrast, a morally upright Atheist, honest in their questions about the big questions, does not deserve eternal punishment, right?

[SteveII]

Your complaint seem that you think that Christianity gives you a license to sin. It does not because if we are trying to have a relationship with God, intentional sin (especially of the type that you are zeroing in on--the ones that affect other people) is simply not compatible with that desire so one must give. If we cease to desire to have a relationship with God and continue to have an unrepentant attitude about our sins, IMO, you are in traveling down a continuum where at some point God knows your heart and you will lose your salvation (yes, that is what I believe the NT clearly teaches). 

So, conflict solved. There are no such thing as "morally monstrous xtians".

And so in contrast, a morally upright Atheist, honest in their questions about the big questions, does not deserve eternal punishment, right?

The eternal punishment has nothing to do with how moral you are in your life. I posted this earlier in this thread:

Sin creates a barrier (because of God's essential holiness) and an obligation to satisfy (because of God's essential justice). The choice is to leave the barrier in place and pay for the consequences defined by God's justice OR accept that he has provided a method to remove each person's individual barrier and satisfy the justice. To be clear, absent outside help, there is nothing we are capable of doing that can remove the barrier and the only satisfaction of divine justice is our death. The only way both the barrier could removed and the satisfaction of justice could be accomplished is if God himself removed the barrier and satisfied the justice by paying for our sins prior to our death and imparting holiness on us in the process. https://atheistforums.org/post-1683883.html#pid1683883

Your objection about how deserving someone is because of a otherwise moral life only illustrates that you do not understand the belief you are complaining about. Follow the discussion from the beginning. Ask if you do not understand my answers.

[vulcanlogician]

However, this moral life has no ultimate meaning without salvation.

Leo Tolstoy thought you were wrong about morality not being the core. To him, your statement above is backwards.

To him, leading a moral life was what led him to union with God. He was an extremely wealthy russian aristocrat, educated in science and philosophy. He felt the Church emphasized superstition over morality, and became an atheist. But he converted back to Christianity later on. Once he learned a bit of Greek and studied the Gospels carefully, he concluded that "Resist not evil" was the central commandment of Christ.

Not only was he a pacifist (ie took the commands in the Sermon on the Mount literally). He wrote, "A letter to a Hindu" describing how how the people of India might drive the British from their country without "doing evil" to them. It was picked up by [some schmuck] who actually used it to liberate the country. This is the real power of Christianity. The moral teaching has the power to change the world (and without doing a single bit of harm to anyone). The early Christians did it in Rome, and it worked. But once they became Rome, they abandoned pacifism. Today, whether speaking of Catholics or Protestants, True Christianity is no longer practiced. It's not a religion. It's the zombie of Rome. (That's a poetized version of Tolstoy's perspective BTW.)

Later in his life, Tolstoy came to the realization that he could not be both a wealthy aristocrat and a Christian at the same time. So he gave up all his wealth, renounced his title of count, and lived in a small cabin in the countryside where he supported himself by working the fields with the peasants. He actually did what the Bible commanded. He gave up his wealth-- and a ton of it, too. Be careful throwing around the term "cultural Christian." You just might be one of them.

I would say that Christian are on average more moral than atheists...IF you remove all nominal and cultural Christians from the comparison.

LOL! You have no way of knowing this. How can you look into the hearts of millions of people and say that, on average, genuine Christians are more moral. I was expecting you to concede that there is no clear evidence of a correlation between faith and morality. No wonder people called you out on this. 

Sorry that I have been arguing so voraciously when you are just trying to present the Christian perspective. It's just that I've recently brought it up in Christian forums (where I've adopted a curious, passive posture) and heard too many things about Jesus Blood™ and salvation. You may be catching the brunt of what I would like to say to them.


For any interested parties, Chapter 1 is about a 15 minute read: http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/To...elieve.pdf

[The Grand Nudger]

So, conflict solved. There are no such thing as "morally monstrous xtians".

...............................................

[JackRussell]

And so in contrast, a morally upright Atheist, honest in their questions about the big questions, does not deserve eternal punishment, right?

The eternal punishment has nothing to do with how moral you are in your life. I posted this earlier in this thread:

Sin creates a barrier (because of God's essential holiness) and an obligation to satisfy (because of God's essential justice). The choice is to leave the barrier in place and pay for the consequences defined by God's justice OR accept that he has provided a method to remove each person's individual barrier and satisfy the justice. To be clear, absent outside help, there is nothing we are capable of doing that can remove the barrier and the only satisfaction of divine justice is our death. The only way both the barrier could removed and the satisfaction of justice could be accomplished is if God himself removed the barrier and satisfied the justice by paying for our sins prior to our death and imparting holiness on us in the process. https://atheistforums.org/post-1683883.html#pid1683883

Your objection about how deserving someone is because of a otherwise moral life only illustrates that you do not understand the belief you are complaining about. Follow the discussion from the beginning. Ask if you do not understand my answers.

I think I understand your answers; I just don't see your worldview as reasonable, fair or cogent. Which is why I guess we disagree.

But then I was raised Jewish and now reject that too.

I care about wellbeing and social contracts that are totally inclusive, and I don't see a happy wandering for me between that and theism. For me morality is all, and I well know I am imperfect, I don't see any benefit to acquiescence though, it seems like a slave mind to me and I would respect a god that respects my integrity.

And, not you Steve, but the choices and threats from other theists here and their unscientific rants open up an immeasurable chasm in discourse.

I have friends I know and respect as Christians, no problem, I just see it as differing ways to approach a decent life. I strive to do so too, god is just meaningless to me.

I hope she doesn't mind.

[SteveII]

However, this moral life has no ultimate meaning without salvation.

Leo Tolstoy thought you were wrong about morality not being the core. To him, your statement above is backwards.

To him, leading a moral life was what led him to union with God. He was an extremely wealthy russian aristocrat, educated in science and philosophy. He felt the Church emphasized superstition over morality, and became an atheist. But he converted back to Christianity later on. Once he learned a bit of Greek and studied the Gospels carefully, he concluded that "Resist not evil" was the central commandment of Christ.

Not only was he a pacifist (ie took the commands in the Sermon on the Mount literally). He wrote, "A letter to a Hindu" describing how how the people of India might drive the British from their country without "doing evil" to them. It was picked up by [some schmuck] who actually used it to liberate the country. This is the real power of Christianity. The moral teaching has the power to change the world (and without doing a single bit of harm to anyone). The early Christians did it in Rome, and it worked. But once they became Rome, they abandoned pacifism. Today, whether speaking of Catholics or Protestants, True Christianity is no longer practiced. It's not a religion. It's the zombie of Rome. (That's a poetized version of Tolstoy's perspective BTW.)

Later in his life, Tolstoy came to the realization that he could not be both a wealthy aristocrat and a Christian at the same time. So he gave up all his wealth, renounced his title of count, and lived in a small cabin in the countryside where he supported himself by working the fields with the peasants. He actually did what the Bible commanded. He gave up his wealth-- and a ton of it, too. Be careful throwing around the term "cultural Christian." You just might be one of them.

But was he a Christian? He did not believe Christ was who he said he was in the NT. He worked up his own definition. I like to work with the original, generally accepted and clearly articulated one from the documents that founded Christianity. 

I would say that Christian are on average more moral than atheists...IF you remove all nominal and cultural Christians from the comparison.

LOL! You have no way of knowing this. How can you look into the hearts of millions of people and say that, on average, genuine Christians are more moral. I was expecting you to concede that there is no clear evidence of a correlation between faith and morality. No wonder people called you out on this.

Why would I concede that there is no difference in morality between a population of people who individually and collectively develop/discover subjective morality and another population that is commanded to follow a moral code as part of their worldview? Even non-christians agree that the moral code of Jesus is admirable. Seems like a very reasonable inference to me. 

Sorry that I have been arguing so voraciously when you are just trying to present the Christian perspective. It's just that I've recently brought it up in Christian forums (where I've adopted a curious, passive posture) and heard too many things about Jesus Blood™ and salvation. You may be catching the brunt of what I would like to say to them.

No problem. By AF standards, it did not even register.

[The Grand Nudger]

But was he a Christian? He did not believe Christ was who he said he was in the NT. He worked up his own definition. I like to work with the original, generally accepted and clearly articulated one from the documents that founded Christianity. 

Are you really ready to excommunicate Tolstoy again...?  His experience of christianity actually -was- transformative.  That "change" you were talking about earlier is definitely showing here.....but according to you he's an atheist, lol.  

Why would I concede that there is no difference in morality between a population of people who individually and collectively develop/discover subjective morality and another population that is commanded to follow a moral code as part of their worldview?

Another difference that isn't there.  Deontological ethics are common and commonly secular.

That's 0/2. Christianity isn't doing shit to anyone's "heart", and it doesn't hold the patent on normative ethics.

[SteveII]

But was he a Christian? He did not believe Christ was who he said he was in the NT. He worked up his own definition. I like to work with the original, generally accepted and clearly articulated one from the documents that founded Christianity. 

Are you really ready to excommunicate Tolstoy again...?  His experience of christianity actually -was- transformative.  That "change" you were talking about earlier is definitely showing here.....but according to you he's an atheist, lol. 

Atheist?? Where in the world do you get that? He obviously believed in God. The opposite of Christian is not 'atheist', it's 'not Christian'. 

Why would I concede that there is no difference in morality between a population of people who individually and collectively develop/discover subjective morality and another population that is commanded to follow a moral code as part of their worldview?

Another difference that isn't there.  Deontological ethics are common and commonly secular.

Certainly not the same thing as following a objective, very specific list.