The Christian God incentivizes the wrong things

[Neo-Scholastic]

According to many Christians that is the case, but not all. In New Church doctrine repentance means to turn away from sin and not return to it.

That may be the case, Chad, but you very well know that the "New Church" represents a tiny minority of Christian theology.

Very true. I always distinguish between essential
And non essential doctrines.

[RobbyPants]

...it's still possible to sin, repent, and then sin again... Part of Christian doctrine is that you will keep on sinning.

According to many Christians that is the case, but not all. In New Church doctrine repentance means to turn away from sin and not return to it. There are no 'magic words' and its more than just feeling regret full. Your whole being must change such that sin becomes aborant to you. What I meant earlier is that there are three degrees of repentance: a permanent change of heart, renewal of the mind, and manifest action.

So, you're saying salvation is based on works, then? Most Christians I talk to say it's based on grace, and they give very nebulous answers as to what repentance is. Now, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, but it does totally sound works-based, and not grace-based. You just listed some rather strict (unattainable?) criteria that a person has to fulfill on top of accepting Jesus as their lord and savior.

Christians are punished the same way as non-christians. They go to jail. get the death penaly, are fined, etc. Look at the punishments for the Jews under the old testament law - pretty tough. An atheist who commits crimes all his life and dies without being caught also "gets away with murder". As far as those who sinned all their lives and truly repented before death - that's the benefit of Jesus paying the penalty for us. Repentance is available to everybody equally, including athiests. Of course, for someone who plans to be a criminal all his life and repent at the last minute, that doesn't pass because that's not true repentance.

Yeah, I never said they didn't get punished. The whole example in the OP was an analogy to point out how the punishment (hell) and reward (heaven) aren't actually keyed to moral behaviors, but rather, to swearing the oath of fealty. Once you do that, you're good to go.

Now, your "true repentance" definition sounds like a No True Scotsman. As an ex-Christian, I was totally taught that death-bed conversions were totally admissible. I understand why you don't want it to be that way (just world hypothesis, and all), but I've never heard anyone actually define repentance in a way that wasn't either:

• Exactly what I'm describing, or
  
• Completely unattainable.
  

[Lek]

[/quote]

Yeah, I never said they didn't get punished. The whole example in the OP was an analogy to point out how the punishment (hell) and reward (heaven) aren't actually keyed to moral behaviors, but rather, to swearing the oath of fealty. Once you do that, you're good to go.

Now, your "true repentance" definition sounds like a No True Scotsman. As an ex-Christian, I was totally taught that death-bed conversions were totally admissible. I understand why you don't want it to be that way (just world hypothesis, and all), but I've never heard anyone actually define repentance in a way that wasn't either:

• Exactly what I'm describing, or
  
• Completely unattainable.
  

[/quote]

I didn't say death bed conversions were totally inadmissable. What I said was someone who makes a plan to do what he wants with the intention of sliding into heaven on his death bed wouldn't be forgiven because he wasn't sincere in his repentance. If a person sincerely repents on his death bed then I believe he would be forgiven. I guess you're right in saying getting into heaven isn't directly tied to our behaviors. This is how it is - a person who has faith in Christ will also have a desire to follow him. Jesus has given us a code to live by, which involves commiting to living a moral life in his service. If a person is not commited to living a moral lifestyle, then he also doesn't have faith in Christ. How you live isn't what saves you, but how you live is a demonstration of your faith. True faith is inseparable from a moral lifestyle.

[RobbyPants]

What I said was someone who makes a plan to do what he wants with the intention of sliding into heaven on his death bed wouldn't be forgiven because he wasn't sincere in his repentance.

And that doesn't address my point. I never mentioned anything about planning to keep sinning. You can still sin, repent, sin, repent, sin, repeat without planning to. That's what every Christian does.

I guess you're right in saying getting into heaven isn't directly tied to our behaviors. This is how it is - a person who has faith in Christ will also have a desire to follow him. Jesus has given us a code to live by, which involves commiting to living a moral life in his service. If a person is not commited to living a moral lifestyle, then he also doesn't have faith in Christ. How you live isn't what saves you, but how you live is a demonstration of your faith. True faith is inseparable from a moral lifestyle.

No, that's one way a Christian gets to heaven. As you already admitted, sincere deathbed conversions would be admissible. The point is, the punishment and reward system isn't tied to good deeds; it's tied to swearing the proper oath. Sure, if you swear it early in life, you're not supposed to plan to keep sinning, but it doesn't stop you from doing it, so long as you're contrite.

Christian theology teaches that someone like John Wayne Gacy could totally rape and murder several dozen boys and men, find Jesus, repent, and get heaven. That absolves him from all his raping and murder. However, some truly generous person who helped thousands with his donations, never raped or murdered, but didn't swear the oath gets punished.

I'd rather see a system that says "don't raper and murder, and instead help people" as opposed to one that says "if you raped and murdered, it's no biggy, so long as you repent and try to stop raping and murdering. If you start again, repent again and try harder. Also, try to be nice to people, but that's not a strict requirement. You should want to, but you're not being kept out of heaven for it."

[Mudhammam]

So what's the trick for one to do this and retain their supposed affection for intellectual integrity? Is it even possible?

I'm confused what you're asking? "How does a person stop being intellectually honest while still being intellectually honest?"

They can't be, of course.

But we have the religious scientist, almost a walking paradox. That would be the type of person I'm referring to. I genuinely wish to know how a person can compartmentalize in such a fashion.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All Christians agree that the sinless man, Jesus Christ, died for to save Mankind from its sin. How that idea actually plays out has long been and remains a matter of debate. The two main points of contention are 1) the tension between ‘faith’ and ‘works’ and 2) the nature of and justification for His sacrifice.

As for the later, evangelicals overwhelmingly emphasize a substitutionary theory of atonement in which either 1) Christ dies to satisfy Mankind’s debt of sin (Genesis 2 paired with Romans 6:23) or 2) to appease the Father’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3). However, the ‘Christus Victor’ theory, in which Christ defeats the power of sin has a very long history and is much older than New Church doctrine. Proof-text examples include passages like Hebrews 2:14-15 and Colossians 2:15. Under Christus Victor, Old Testament references to the “strong arm of the Lord” (ex. Psalm 118:16-24) get interpreted as Christ defeating sin and empowering the beliers to have victory (Revelation 3:21).

I do not know any Christian that feels people can earn salvation merely by doing good deeds. The condition of the believer’s heart determines whether the action is, or is not meritorious. People can act in for the benefit of others for the wrong reasons: for show, to assuage guilt, as enlightened self-interest, evolutionary impulses, etc. Technically, these are the types of good deeds to which Jesus referred when saying, “…They have already received their reward…” (Matthew 6). The story of the widow’s offering (Mark 12:41-44) shows that good deed naturally follows from the character of the believer’s heart.

In some cases, a person, like the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43), is not capable of expressing that character. This story lends some supports the faith-alone doctrine, but just as easily shows that the thief’s perfect contrition meant that he purged himself of all the evil desires that would prevent him from entering paradise.

A persons will, intellect, and actions are discrete degrees and there is a natural progression from desire, through thought, and into action. What someone loves guides what a person thinks. What a person thinks guides what they do. Intellectually, you can know what is true and still not have the will to do it. Thus belief on its own does not keep (save) you from sinning.

Overall, I feel that New Church doctrine provides the most balanced approach to atonement, which follows from one key insight in particular. Salvation is not a “Geo-Out-of-Hell-Free” card; but rather freedom from sin. You no longer desire sin, are not swayed by the lies that tempt, and will not continue to do evil. This explains why sin does not enter Heaven; good spirits do not carry wicked desires in with them. As such they can be instructed in the truth and shed false doctrines and beliefs (like heathen religious ides). On the other hand, evil spirits have not purged themselves of wicked desires and thus continue to be filled with ‘burning’ desires for evil. They cannot be instructed in the truth; but rather, hold fast to the lies that justify their infernal desires.

[RobbyPants]

Intellectually, you can know what is true and still not have the will to do it. Thus belief on its own does not keep (save) you from sinning.

When you say "not have the will to do it", this still sounds like a form of "works" to me. Any time I talk to someone about grace and works, works seems to be defined by "works only" and grace seems to be defined by "a combination of grace and some actions on the believer's part".

Would you agree? If repentance is required for salvation, then it wouldn't seem to me that grace means "grace alone".

Overall, I feel that New Church doctrine provides the most balanced approach to atonement, which follows from one key insight in particular. Salvation is not a “Geo-Out-of-Hell-Free” card; but rather freedom from sin. You no longer desire sin, are not swayed by the lies that tempt, and will not continue to do evil. This explains why sin does not enter Heaven; good spirits do not carry wicked desires in with them. As such they can be instructed in the truth and shed false doctrines and beliefs (like heathen religious ides). On the other hand, evil spirits have not purged themselves of wicked desires and thus continue to be filled with ‘burning’ desires for evil. They cannot be instructed in the truth; but rather, hold fast to the lies that justify their infernal desires.

It seems there is a huge amount of traction in Christianity for the "poor sinner who keeps trying his best". People may pity this person, but the fact that he keeps trying is seen as a good thing. Every Christian I've talked to says that no one is without sin. So, even without a desire to sin, the person is still going to do so. If nothing else, this is going to be the case for "thought sins", where a person thinks something sinful.

That being said, I still feel my initial point stands. Even a person with a desire to do good and avoid bad won't necessarily follow through (or at least not as well as intended). So, based on your response, I could change my initial wording from "swearing an oath of fealty" to "wanting to do the right thing".


So now, the reward/punishment system is based on wanting to be good rather than actually being good. I think that paints an even worse picture, honestly.

[ThomM]

As far as I can tell, you basically have to be willing to completely disregard any dissenting view point, and then it's relatively easy. I went though a several year period where I didn't believe and couldn't make myself believe. I really wanted to, but I wasn't willing to throw out observable evidence or logic. I was hoping I could come up with a framework where I could keep those thing and my belief and... predictably failed.

Similarly, we see people do stuff like join cults and drink poisoned beverages and die willingly. I think you just have to get to a point where you refuse to consider any other view point.

For a lot of people, they can find themselves in that position out of ignorance, and the well has already been poisoned before they run into a dissenting view point. So, they're already convinced of the argument's/evidence's wrongness before they encounter it.

So what's the trick for one to do this and retain their supposed affection for intellectual integrity? Is it even possible?

That depends

The most basic problem with religion is the need for a REWARD for claimed good behavior - and a Punishment for claimed bad behavior (Who gets to pick what is good and bad?)

A theist cannot just accept the idea that being good is done for its own sake - and that you do not get a reward. THere has to be something more. And in order NOT be be punished - they will do many things that a logical person would not - as criminals do. (Like attempt to pay their way - since obviously gods are not above blackmail)

For an uneducated person - or a person who was carefully indoctrinated at a very early age - the belief in the myths of religion - to them - WAS the acceptance of truth. Virtually everyone was telling them the religious side - and few were questioning the claim because THAT is not what they were taught to be true.

However - it was education - that changed everything. Once you realize that you can read and interpret these ancient myths and legends just as well as anyone else - and once you also realize that they together do not make much sense - it is hard then justify the THOUSANDS of different claims religions make.

However - for me - born a catholic -raised to be a priest - two of my fathers brothers were priests and actually having gone to a seminary for a while - - asking questions were normally responded with how to convince others of the religious point of view - but included no support for the statements for proof. Eventually someone said - read the bible - the whole bible - from page one - and then start again.

Of course - the person said that as an attack on my catholic upbringing - but instead of supporting their protestant religion - it pretty much proved that the whole thing is nonsense.

Now that most of the claims of the bible have turned out to be MYTH and LEGEND - and with the knowledge that most of the major sects of xtianity have accepted that to be the case - but that the origin of life still has to be a god - the problem is - there is no support for the claims of the religions afterwards.

And while Xtians in this group continue to claim that the christ is a historical figure - they STILL have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to prove that to be true. Yet - every year - more and more of the claims of the bible turn out to be unsupportable.

[tokutter]

Christians are punished the same way as non-christians. They go to jail. get the death penaly, are fined, etc. Look at the punishments for the Jews under the old testament law - pretty tough. An atheist who commits crimes all his life and dies without being caught also "gets away with murder". As far as those who sinned all their lives and truly repented before death - that's the benefit of Jesus paying the penalty for us. Repentance is available to everybody equally, including athiests. Of course, for someone who plans to be a criminal all his life and repent at the last minute, that doesn't pass because that's not true repentance.

You mean like that criminal on the cross next to jesus who got forgiven.....Luke 23:39-43........this is nothing more that christian spin.....wah wah wah.....i'm a good christian all my life and they get in "under the wire"......wah wah wah .....that can't be right....wah wah wah.....let's spin it so it's not so.......and then repeat and repeat and repeat.

---

Repentance is followed by regeneration not continued sin.

Yeah, but it's still possible to sin, repent, and then sin again, even if you had no intention to do so at the time of repentance. My premise doesn't require the person to plan on sinning. Part of Christian doctrine is that you will keep on sinning. You just need to be contrite.

Exactly RobbyPants........its the "JUST SAY YOUR SORRY RELIGION"..... HMMMMMMMMMM.....I wonder if thats one of the reasons this religion has become so popular?????????? .

[*Deidre*]

The incentive for following Christianity is to "gain" heaven and avoid "hell."

If you believe in neither, it will be a hard sell. lol

---

If you are motivated to doing good based on where you "might" spend eternity, your real life will diminish in meaning. That is why so many Christians are self centered. Their gaze is on an after life instead of how they can make a difference in THIS life.

Robby, good thread but you are wasting your time with the "Christians" here. The only humble Christian here is fr0d0, the rest just talk past the atheists here and in an arrogant way. Not sure what religion is actually "doing" for them, because gaining in humility, I'm not seeing it.