Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 17, 2015 at 5:54 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Premise not accepted. You haven't appropriately correlated 'gaming the system' with 'immoral behavior' with 'poor moral system.'
What are you talking about? If a moral system allows one to commit immoral acts, and contains within its premises a method by which those immoral acts become forgotten within the metric of the system, if there is a way to do immoral acts with great regularity within a moral system and still come out the other end considered moral, then that moral system has failed at its stated purpose of separating the moral people from the immoral people.
This is like if I had a car that I claimed was a poor car because it has no wheels, and you disagreed because I hadn't properly correlated "not being able to drive," with "poor car." The thing literally cannot do the one thing it was set up to accomplish; if that's not a poor version of whatever the thing is, then I'd very much like to know what you consider poor quality in anything.
Quote: To further explain. If gaming the system isn't an immoral [or heinous] act then there's nothing wrong with doing it and it therefore wouldn't be a part of the moral system at all. If gaming the system is immoral, then it would be a part of the moral system and it would be wrong to do.
If gaming the system allows one to freely commit immoral acts without impact, if the whole purpose of gaming the system is to do precisely that and it could be put to no other use, then it is itself an immoral act. If it's an immoral act and hence wrong to do, then repentance is wrong to do, as repentance literally is gaming the system, and the mechanisms of the system fail completely.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(February 18, 2015 at 2:25 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: So, how does repentance factor into this? Does it matter or is it necessary for salvation?
In order to come to Christ in faith you must be repentant. If you're not, then you don't have a desire to follow him. By definition, a person who has decided to follow Christ has repentance for his sins. 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."
(February 17, 2015 at 5:54 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Premise not accepted. You haven't appropriately correlated 'gaming the system' with 'immoral behavior' with 'poor moral system.'
What are you talking about? If a moral system allows one to commit immoral acts, and contains within its premises a method by which those immoral acts become forgotten within the metric of the system, if there is a way to do immoral acts with great regularity within a moral system and still come out the other end considered moral, then that moral system has failed at its stated purpose of separating the moral people from the immoral people.
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.
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.
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.
(February 18, 2015 at 7:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
Quote: To further explain. If gaming the system isn't an immoral [or heinous] act then there's nothing wrong with doing it and it therefore wouldn't be a part of the moral system at all. If gaming the system is immoral, then it would be a part of the moral system and it would be wrong to do.
If gaming the system allows one to freely commit immoral acts without impact, if the whole purpose of gaming the system is to do precisely that and it could be put to no other use, then it is itself an immoral act. If it's an immoral act and hence wrong to do, then repentance is wrong to do, as repentance literally is gaming the system, and the mechanisms of the system fail completely.
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].
In the New Testament, three Greek words express repentance: the verbs metanoeo, metamelomai, and the noun metanoia. 1) According to the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, metanoeo is used “predominately of a religious and ethical change in the way one thinks about acts: repent, change one’s mind, be converted (Mat 3:2).” It can also express an emotional element: “as feeling re-morse regret, feel sorry (Luk 17:3, 4).” 2) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamen and Other Early Christian Literature by Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, and Bauer says that metamelomai means to “feel regret, re-pent.” The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains by J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida says of metamelomai “to change one’s mind about something, with the probable implication of regret—‘to change one’s mind, to think differently.’” 3) “Metanoia means “a change of mind that leads to a change of behavior.” Louw and Nida say of metanoeo and metanoia, “To change one’s way of life as the result of a com-plete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness—‘to repent, to change one’s way, repentance.’ metanoeo: ‘And they went out, and preached that men should repent’ (Mar 6:12). metanoia: ‘not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?’ (Rom 2:4). Though in English a focal compo-nent of repent is the sorrow or contrition that a person experiences because of sin, the emphasis in metanoeo and metanoia seems to be more specifically the total change, both in thought and behavior, with respect to how one should both think and act.” The importance of these definitions is that while the primary emphasis in re-pentance is on the change of mind that leads to a change of behavior, one cannot rule out the emotional element of regret or remorse.
What Repentance Includes
Therefore, to repent is a change of mind about sin and about God, which results in turning from sin to God. And what a turning it is! Repentance affects the whole life of a sinner.
Repentance includes a sinner taking the blame for his sinful condition before God and siding with Him against himself. A penitant blames no one else for his condition, but rather condemns himself under God’s eternal wrath because he deserves it.
Repentance includes sorrowing for sin. 2 Corinthians 7:10 says that “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of.” And Matthew 5:4 says, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be com-forted.”
Repentance leads to confessing sin. Hiding nothing, a sinner owns his sins and pours out his sinful heart to God.
Furthermore, repentance leads to forsaking sin. A repenting sinner determines not to return to it. So in Bib-lical repentance, a convicted and convinced sinner takes his place before God as justly condemned. He hates his sin, longing to be free from it. He sorrows over sin, determining not to return to it. And he shows that his repentance is real by walking in the pathway of righteousness and true holiness. “Bringing forth fruits for re-pentance” is evidence that a radical change has taken place in our lives (Mat 3:8).
(http://gospeltranslations.org/wiki/Bibli...Repentance)
"In the New Testament, the word translated as 'repentance' is the Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia), "after/behind one's mind", which is a compound word of the preposition 'meta' (after, with), and the verb 'noeo' (to perceive, to think, the result of perceiving or observing). In this compound word the preposition combines the two meanings of time and change, which may be denoted by 'after' and 'different'; so that the whole compound means: 'to think differently after'. Metanoia is therefore primarily an after-thought, different from the former thought; a change of mind accompanied by regret and change of conduct, "change of mind and heart", or, "change of consciousness". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repentance)
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
(February 19, 2015 at 1:25 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: 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. It compromises the whole system. No, more than that, it renders the system moot, as now there's no point in avoiding sin at all, despite being told to avoid sin. The notion of immoral actions, within that system, has been entirely robbed of significance, and hence, so too has the notion of moral actions. You no longer need to do either.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
I was taught that anything that doesn't please god is a sin and I must repent for that sin. I was constantly wondering if my actions at the time were pleasing to god.
I coach football, how in the world does a sport please god? So using that logic I must repent for not pleasing god when I coach football.
The absolute most freeing thing about realizing that this religious stuff is a load of crap, is not having conversations like this thread with other religious people. Also, not going around wondering every time something bad happened, was it a result of me not pleasing god and not repenting fully. You christians can refute this but I know for a fact that I was not the only person who felt this way.
(February 18, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Lek Wrote: [...] 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."
Well, what if I don't say it? What I just keep repenting, and sinning, and repenting in a vicious cycle of selfishness and self-deprecation? You know - like Christians do...
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
(February 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:
(February 18, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Lek Wrote: [...] 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."
Well, what if I don't say it? What I just keep repenting, and sinning, and repenting in a vicious cycle of selfishness and self-deprecation? You know - like Christians do...
Which is the whole point of repentance. It's so weird that christians pretend like sinning is this accidental thing that they don't really want to do, or that they have a choice not to do, but the bible makes it clear that you don't have that choice: sin is inherent in human nature, our natural capacity is to sin, it's inescapable. The salvation deal is literally based around this concept; you can't help but sin, you need the sacrifice of Christ to check in to heaven.
But guys like Lek are all like, oh, once you honestly repent... no more sin! But that's not actually the way it works, even within the scripture.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
