You CAN game Christian morality

[orangebox21]

Within the framework of a moral system that considers 'gaming the system' a moral act, people gaming the system would be moral. A premise you disagree with, but it would not 'fail to separate the moral from the immoral people.' It would simply separate them in a manner you disagree with.

It's not a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of the system failing utterly at its stated purpose. The moral system has X set of actions that it considers good, and Y set of actions that it considers bad, and it offers incentives for the good actions, and disincentives for the bad ones. That's literally the entire point of the system, but you're telling me that contained within set X is a premise that allows you to commit as many actions contained within set Y as you like, while avoiding the disincentives and still gaining the incentives.

You didn't argue that it would make the moral separation correctly, you argued that it wouldn't do it at all. Perhaps I didn't understand your point when you wrote: 'fails to separate the moral from the immoral," [post #21] and you meant "...fails to separate the moral from the immoral people consistently or correctly ." Yes? No? If you meant the latter I do agree with you.

Outside of the framework of a moral system that considers 'gaming the system' a moral act one can argue that gaming the system is immoral.

But this was never an issue of morality, it's an issue of the efficacy of the system itself. The argument is that, moral or immoral, the presence of the ability to game the system renders the system itself a failure.

Sorry, wrong choice of word. Change my above statement to read: "Outside of the framework of a moral system that considers 'gaming the system' a moral act one can argue that gaming the system is a failure [or ineffective]."

There hasn't been proper correlation between proving that: gaming the system is an immoral act, Christian morality is a system that views gaming the system as a moral act, and [therefore] Christianity is a poor moral system.

Look above. Look to my last post. All you did was push the conversation to one of morality, rather than efficacy, which you now seem to acknowledge was the original point of the discussion. But a non-sequitur isn't a rebuttal.

If so, then prove:

1. If Christianity teaches gaming the system is a moral act, then Christian morality is an ineffective moral system.
2. Christianity teaches gaming the system is a moral act.
.:/ Christian morality is an ineffective moral system.

[You don't need to further support premise #1 for my sake. Your illustration/explanation from post #24, first response is sufficient to show that a moral system that views 'gaming the system' as a moral act would be an ineffective moral system.]

I don't think you understand what repentance means. Repentance is turning from your sins. A person turning from their sins cannot be gaming the system [continuing to sin with the knowledge you have been forgiven].

Why not? Are you saying a person cannot rationally allow himself to willingly sin while turning from those sins, despite the bible asserting numerous times that we're all sinners by default, that it's not something we can escape? Pragmatically, the reasonable option seems to be to accept the inherent sinfulness the bible foists upon us all- the bible can't be wrong on that point, after all- and to game the system as a matter of course; you can't have a book that says that sin is this trap that there's no way out of, and then expect people to pretend otherwise.
Besides, a person gaming the system could simply characterize their gaming of that system as a lapse, a sin in itself and genuinely repent for that... while still having gaming the system as a consistent sin they need to repent for. The act of gaming the system does not necessarily entail that repentance would be insincere, and I don't understand why you'd assert otherwise.

Because of the definition of repentance.

---

The statement Lek made:

No one would come to him and say "I believe you are my savior and I wish to follow you, but I'm really not sorry for my sins and I plan to continue in them."

Is not the same as the statement you're claiming he made:

once you honestly repent... no more sin!

There is a difference between 'planning to continue in sin' and sinning. To use an imperfect analogy, take 1st degree homicide [premeditated] and manslaughter [spontaneous].

---

A simple way to put it is that "repentance is the result of salvation." It is a necessary result of salvation, but not a prerequisite for it.

So, you can't be repentant until you're saved? If you stop being repentant, does that mean you're no longer saved?

If saved people repent, then an unrepentant person wouldn't be saved.