Morality versus afterlife

[orangebox21]

1. When I say "nothing happened", I mean that I never had the awesome salvation stories that others did.  I heard other people testifying about when they got saved.  Many of them could pinpoint it to a particular date and could talk about all the immediate evidence of this great change that took place in their lives afterward.  For me, I never felt a single thing different.  I was sincere and convinced it was true and wanted to live a life for God, but nothing ever took place to make me any different when I got up than I was when I knelt down.

For some people the change is immediate.  For some people it isn't.  I prayed the sinners prayer multiple times and I never felt any different when I got done.  It wasn't until years later looking back I realized when and how I came to faith.  It grieves me that there was no one at the time to encourage you.  Sanctification is a life long process and won't be perfected until the resurrection.

2. When I say that I never received any additional strength, that's exactly what I meant.  I saw other people kicking bad habits and forgiving their enemies and getting new positive attitudes, but I never felt any change.  Yes, I could give myself a fresh outlook and a better attitude.  I could try hard to kick habits and pray and agonize over my sins, but that's all that happened.  I never felt any additional power to be any different than I was before.  It was all human will.

What about Paul and the thorn in his side?  He prayed that God would remove it but God responded that His grace is sufficient for him.  Maybe that is the situation for you.  Maybe God was bringing you to trust only in Him and not in yourself.

3. You're suggesting it was the "accuser" aka Satan who made me feel guilty for my sins, not God.  Even as a believer, I never understood this.  God hates sin.  Satan loves sin.  Why would Satan make me feel bad about sinning?  Why would God be the one saying "Don't worry about your sin because my son took care of that."  It makes no sense and always seemed to be a perversion of scripture to me.  I think it's entirely more likely that my guilt was a result of the conditioning of my conscience to accept that sin as defined by the bible is a moral crime.

At the cross Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us (Col. 2:14).  The greek word translated here as 'blotted out' is likened to the erasing of a chalk board.  The ordinances that are against us have to do with the law.  One effect of the law is our sin debt to God.  Couple that with 2 Corinthians 5:21 where we are made the righteousness of God.  So God, having completely erased our sin debt and having given us His righteousness, has no reason to accuse us of anything.  This is strictly in the context of salvation (soteriology).  We are still in a process of sanctification (being conformed to the image and likeness of Christ), and in this sense we sin and God is bringing us into Christ's image, but in the legal sense (soteriologically) we are declared righteous (without sin).

P.S. To address your signature... yes, I would.

You're the first to address the question, kudos!

---

It can't be too difficult to answer that question RR, what with the numbers of people who go through life being "moral" in a manner completely recognizable to -you- as moral...without having any such objective, transcendent definition...for whether or not they feel like tossing old ladies into the street......

Observation is not ontology, it's begging the question.

---

Let me begin with my functional definition of morality. Which is behaviors that lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible, and the harm of the well being of the least number of people.

Please define well being.  Who decides which behaviors lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible and how is that determined?

---

I -already- consider some things to be moral or immoral that my own society disagrees upon (as I'm sure you do too).  You are completely failing to present a hypothetical to me.  I'm a moral utilitarian.

Me too. My morality only partly lines up with society. Mine, that is. It probably barely lines up at all with some others.

Moral autonomy   ^^^^^

What is "acceptable" is decided at an individual level, and by societal norms. These are both dynamic. There is no transcript. The idea that "morality" should be considered to be the same by everyone, and from everyone's point of view is absurd.

Why then were you "scared by my answer?" (Post #14)

Also, what am I even saying? This forum is full of members who used to be theists. None of those are going around being evil.

With the exception of not loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

Under your definition, wouldn't the genocide of weaker members of society be acceptable, if it provided betterment to a greater number of people?  If one deems it better for a greater number of people, then the harm a fewer number of people would be justified.

No.

You know how you can tell? Ask the people that are the targets of the genocide if they feel that their well being is going to be harmed or not.

You're not remaining consistent with your original definition in answering the question.  If the harm caused to the targets of the genocide is less than the benefit to the rest of society, then the action would be moral.