RE: Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity
January 31, 2017 at 7:03 pm
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2017 at 7:05 pm by Redoubtable.)
(January 31, 2017 at 5:37 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: If you don't mind, I'd like to jump in on this one. Sin is its own punishment. People are already being punished in this way everyday, not just in the distant future. The issue is whether or not you choose to be delivered from the power of sin over the whole of your life, both now and in the hereafter.
If sin is its own punishment then what does that mean in practice? Christians maintain that lustful thoughts are a sin, and yet, you can have a lustful fantasy, and be totally unaffected afterwards with no perceptible punishment in this life. In spite of this Christians (Catholics in particular) maintain that this sin is a grave matter and can in itself condemn you to an eternity in Hell. So you get a token imperceptible punishment in this life, but unimaginable suffering as punishment in the next!? I don't see how this conception of punishment for sin is substantially that much different from belief in bad luck.
As the old superstition goes, you'll get seven years of bad luck for breaking a mirror, but what does that mean in practice? Well nothing, but if you believe that sort of thing any bad thing that happens to you can be attributed to you breaking the mirror. In the case of sin acting as its own punishment in this life, any misfortune that befalls you (internal or external) can be attributed to "breaking the mirror" by committing any sin from A-Z.
And just to return to my original point, even if we grant what you're saying here, I don't see how it changes my core concern. Not being convinced by the gospel is considered by Christians to be an act of injustice on my part. I have wronged God by my disbelief, I have failed in some crucial moral duty. Now you can frame it however you like, claiming that I'm punished by my disbelief in this life by not opening myself up to the supposed benefits of the gospel, but ultimately, it still holds true according to Christians, that on my judgement day, God will reckon my unbelief as a sin, an act of injustice against him, and see fit to have me suffer in eternity for it.
(January 31, 2017 at 5:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Well, how do you think Yahweh started? If you think that theists didn't originally imagine him as a bearded superhero in the sky whipping lightning bolts just like Zeus, you're sadly mistaken. It's only with scientific advances that they suddenly re-imagined him as an immaterial entity outside of space and time. Don't be fooled by theists like Chad's attempts at revising the intentions of the original writers.
No I actually do believe that's how Yahweh got started. The OT is a mixed bag to me, it was written much later than the events it alleges to chronicle, but I believe it at times does capture the attitudes and beliefs of the ancient Hebrews as leftovers from oral tradition. For example, I think it's clear that the ancient Hebrews believed in many gods, but that Yahweh was THEIR god. Moreover I think they also believed that Yahweh was very much like how other religions viewed their gods, like a superhero. Overtime though these beliefs went away; monotheism was adopted and the idea of god became more abstract, less anthropomorphic. I just don't like getting bogged down in the god debate on topics like this because even if we just assumed a god exists, it does nothing to detract from the specific criticisms I'm making about Christianity as a religion. Using arguments about god's existence in general are often employed as the first line of defense by the religious when it comes to responding to criticisms specific to their religions as a way to take the heat off of their particular doctrines and make the debate more general.
(January 31, 2017 at 12:54 pm)SteveII Wrote: Because salvation (or lack thereof) is not a moral issue. It is a legal issue (judgement, payment for sin, substitution, penalty, etc. are all key words).
If it's not a moral issue, then does that mean there is no sin in refusing to believe? If so, how do you reconcile this with the NT wherein Jesus tells his disciples to shake the dust from their feet when faced with unbelievers who don't embrace their message? If they had done no wrong, why would Jesus tell his followers to perform this gesture of condemnation, in addition to telling them that their punishment on Judgement Day will be worse than what Sodom and Gomorrah received by God's hand?
