A while back, I made a thread about Christian morality having bad incentives. It was mainly a thread to say that Christianity doesn't compel you to do good, but rather to swear an oath of fealty. Throughout the thread, at least one apologist told me that you can't game the system to sin knowing that you will be forgiven later, because that isn't a non-repentant lifestyle. I wasn't really trying to make that point in the thread, but I actually realized something: you totally can game the system like that. Here we go:
So, according to the Bible, there is only one unforgivable sin (blaspheming the Holy Spirit). That tautologically means that every other sin is forgivable. So, if I have a moment of weakness and sin, I can ask for forgiveness and repent. Christians will agree with that statement; it's part and parcel to their world view. Now, if I plan to sin knowing that I can ask for forgiveness later, sin, and then ask for forgiveness, the very act of planning to game the system is a forgivable sin. When I ask for forgiveness, all I have to do is apologize both for the sin and for planning to game the system.
Now, apologists will understandably take issue with that second part, and I get that. It looks super immoral, but that's not because the person gaming the system is especially heinous, but because their morality system is just that bad. Look at the system. What's the difference between spontaneous and planned sin?
1) If you believe you have to be truly contrite to be absolved of sin, would anyone ever get into heaven? I don't think anyone feels that bad about everything they do. What if you take God's name in vain seconds before being killed in a car crash? It would seem if the system were strict enough to weed out those trying to game it, that people legitimately trying to follow the system would get weeded out, too.
2) If you believe that the act of trying to game the system is somehow worse than simply spontaneously sinning, it's special pleading. Unless you can show me some scripture to show that this is clearly the case, it's likely an ad hoc assertion to make the system look less pointless. I mean, yes, you can make the point that so long as you plan to sin, you aren't repentant, and you're playing with fire. You could be hit by a truck at any time, so why take that risk, but see my point above. How much are you allowed to "spontaneously" sin before you stop being repentant? I submit that setting those goal posts to allow "normal" levels of sin into heaven but to exclude premeditated sin is just ad hoc special pleading.
So, the problem with the Christian morality system isn't just that it gives bad incentives, but that it cannot generate sane outcomes. The only thing this system had over the previous system of "God kills the wicked and blesses the righteous" is that at least this system is nonfalsifiable. At least you can't look around you and prove it wrong with simple observation. So, Christianity upgraded from Judaism's "provably wrong" setup to "it doesn't make any sense, but at least you can't prove it wrong". Yay?
So, according to the Bible, there is only one unforgivable sin (blaspheming the Holy Spirit). That tautologically means that every other sin is forgivable. So, if I have a moment of weakness and sin, I can ask for forgiveness and repent. Christians will agree with that statement; it's part and parcel to their world view. Now, if I plan to sin knowing that I can ask for forgiveness later, sin, and then ask for forgiveness, the very act of planning to game the system is a forgivable sin. When I ask for forgiveness, all I have to do is apologize both for the sin and for planning to game the system.
Now, apologists will understandably take issue with that second part, and I get that. It looks super immoral, but that's not because the person gaming the system is especially heinous, but because their morality system is just that bad. Look at the system. What's the difference between spontaneous and planned sin?
1) If you believe you have to be truly contrite to be absolved of sin, would anyone ever get into heaven? I don't think anyone feels that bad about everything they do. What if you take God's name in vain seconds before being killed in a car crash? It would seem if the system were strict enough to weed out those trying to game it, that people legitimately trying to follow the system would get weeded out, too.
2) If you believe that the act of trying to game the system is somehow worse than simply spontaneously sinning, it's special pleading. Unless you can show me some scripture to show that this is clearly the case, it's likely an ad hoc assertion to make the system look less pointless. I mean, yes, you can make the point that so long as you plan to sin, you aren't repentant, and you're playing with fire. You could be hit by a truck at any time, so why take that risk, but see my point above. How much are you allowed to "spontaneously" sin before you stop being repentant? I submit that setting those goal posts to allow "normal" levels of sin into heaven but to exclude premeditated sin is just ad hoc special pleading.
So, the problem with the Christian morality system isn't just that it gives bad incentives, but that it cannot generate sane outcomes. The only thing this system had over the previous system of "God kills the wicked and blesses the righteous" is that at least this system is nonfalsifiable. At least you can't look around you and prove it wrong with simple observation. So, Christianity upgraded from Judaism's "provably wrong" setup to "it doesn't make any sense, but at least you can't prove it wrong". Yay?
