Challenge regarding Christian morality

[RobbyPants]

Apparently you can't win this grace through good acts either; so really, morality doesn't enter into it.

Actually, you can, and that's part and parcel to their belief system; however, they don't like it when those things are called "acts". This all stems from some parts of the Bible saying salvation comes from grace alone and others hinting that it takes some action on part of the believer. You reconcile that by declaring those necessary actions to "not be acts", because reasons.

Basically, this means that "acts" are anything some naive, wannabe Christian would try to get into heaven; however, repentance, Baptism, and a desire to be Christ-like totally aren't acts. Again, because reasons. They will absolutely tell you that repentance is required for salvation, and that you can't just behave all willy nilly to get into Heaven (the baptism part is kind of up for debate, but they all do agree it's super important, even if it's not necessary). This "makes sense" in that they don't like the idea of Hitler abusing his get-out-of-jail-free card to get into heaven, yet, they still can't let go of their saved-by-grace-alone rhetoric which allows such abuses.

TL;DR: the stock apologetic on this can basically be explained by the principle of explosion (the Bible posits both A and !A) and doublespeak. Saying "you don't get into heaven by acts, but you must be repentant" is absolutely doublespeak.

[Whateverist]

I suspect you know them better than I do. I feel lucky to have been contaminated by so little of the bible. How old were you when you got out?

[RobbyPants]

I suspect you know them better than I do. I feel lucky to have been contaminated by so little of the bible. How old were you when you got out?

About 31 (I'm 35 now). I started having serious doubts in my late twenties, but it honestly took me about two years to admit I didn't believe and to get comfortable with that.

I'm also familiar with this not only from my own upbringing, but from some time I spent on three different Christian sites/groups since I stopped believing. I do have to say that I know a lot more about my former religion now than when I was an adherent.

[Whateverist]

I can well believe that. Must be kind of a bummer to have all that expertise regarding a way of life you no longer desire. I'm always impressed with people who are able to do what you have done. Though, to be honest, I've also been impressed with some people who embrace agnosticism without becoming an atheist. Seems like agnosticism is the main hurdle. What you prefer to believe is up to you in a way that doesn't require my objection once you stop thinking everyone else needs to believe the same thing.

[Mudhammam]

Must be kind of a bummer to have all that expertise regarding a way of life you no longer desire.

Speaking for myself, yes and no. Yes, it's a bummer because an ENORMOUS chunk of my childhood and youth was wasted on memorizing meaningless, fanciful drivel. No, because I am in a position to judge both sides of the debate having been a fervent believer and a rational skeptic, and given much of the inside scoop on the mental processes of the herd.

[RobbyPants]

Though, to be honest, I've also been impressed with some people who embrace agnosticism without becoming an atheist.

We might be using the terms differently, but I consider myself to be both. Atheist because I don't believe in any gods and agnostic because I don't believe one can prove there are no gods.

[Simon Moon]

We might be using the terms differently, but I consider myself to be both. Atheist because I don't believe in any gods and agnostic because I don't believe one can prove there are no gods.

Yes, to beat a dead horse, (using the formal definitions) atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions.

I would phrase my agnosticism a bit differently than you did, but the thinking is pretty much the same.

Agnosticism - the position that the existence of a god or gods is either unknown, and possibly unknowable.

[Mudhammam]

Right. I identify as an agnostic, atheist, and anti-theist, simultaneously though in different contexts.

[emilynghiem]

This is a byproduct of another thread, but I think the point is worth its own thread, if not its own TV show.

Can anyone name a single Christian moral teaching (moral meaning helpful for the wellbeing of individuals and society) that is not reasonably obvious to any well balanced atheist?

If you are a Christian and the answer is no, what does that tell you about the relevance of Christianity as a moral guide?

The things I have the hardest time explaining to nonChristians:
1. the faith in govt authority even when you are being screwed up the backside,
why is it important to obey authority for obedience sake. this is baffling and appears to be enabling the most corrupt destructive abuses of govt.

But people absolutely need to be able to have this power of influence
by RESPECTING govt even when and especially when seeking reform or correction.
It is more powerful to come from a position of respect and not rejection.

2. how does forgiveness help when it appears to enable wrongdoing to continue. how does this empower anyone to make corrections when it appears the opposite.

3. and related to that, how can demons and spiritual healing be real. if it was real, and can cure all these ills as claimed, wouldn't this already be proven by science by now.

these three are all related to how forgiveness works, but if people don't get it in one area, I mentioned three different areas where the same concept draws blank stares.

---

Apparently you can't win this grace through good acts either; so really, morality doesn't enter into it.

Actually, you can, and that's part and parcel to their belief system; however, they don't like it when those things are called "acts". This all stems from some parts of the Bible saying salvation comes from grace alone and others hinting that it takes some action on part of the believer. You reconcile that by declaring those necessary actions to "not be acts", because reasons.

Basically, this means that "acts" are anything some naive, wannabe Christian would try to get into heaven; however, repentance, Baptism, and a desire to be Christ-like totally aren't acts. Again, because reasons. They will absolutely tell you that repentance is required for salvation, and that you can't just behave all willy nilly to get into Heaven (the baptism part is kind of up for debate, but they all do agree it's super important, even if it's not necessary). This "makes sense" in that they don't like the idea of Hitler abusing his get-out-of-jail-free card to get into heaven, yet, they still can't let go of their saved-by-grace-alone rhetoric which allows such abuses.

TL;DR: the stock apologetic on this can basically be explained by the principle of explosion (the Bible posits both A and !A) and doublespeak. Saying "you don't get into heaven by acts, but you must be repentant" is absolutely doublespeak.

Hi RobbyPants
1. I focus on the act/choice of asking help with forgiveness as the determining factor
2. I find the issue is salvation is a process of both forgiving and reconciling in spirit, and also manifesting this in action as a result of being saved, even though it takes consequent steps to fully realize; so the arguments people are having are where to draw the line between being saved in spirit and fully manifesting this in practice
3. where this makes a difference, the faith of secular gentiles who require proof they can see first relies on seeing works so this demonstrates that Christian faith accomplishes what it promises. so the faith of believers is enough based on grace and faith alone, but the faith of secular gentiles is where the works serve as proof so those people who need this can accept that this is valid for realizing peace and justice

[robvalue]

You can be an agnostic theist, though. You believe there is a God, but you don't claim to know for sure there is a god.

It's the more intellectually honest theist position, but in my experience the rarer one.