You CAN game Christian morality

[robvalue]

What a bloody stupid system, it's worse than I thought. Get saved then go on a 90 year murder rampage and still get a cheap seat in heaven. Now that's morality.

[RobbyPants]

What a bloody stupid system, it's worse than I thought. Get saved then go on a 90 year murder rampage and still get a cheap seat in heaven. Now that's morality.

I anticipate a response along the lines of "but you wouldn't do that if you were saved", but that has no bearing on whether or not you can. And so far as I can tell, it's just an assertion that isn't backed by anything other than a desire to not let all the Hitlers into heaven. Most Christians see the problem with that, even if their system doesn't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yep -- that card has already been played in this thread, too.

When combined with the Biblical assertion that all men are sinners, the only logical conclusion is that there are no truly saved Christians.

[robvalue]

Yeah... always I am told that we will sin. So to then say we won't sin after we're saved... bleh. What a tangled mess of nonsense.

I don't give a monkeys crunchy nut about "sin" anyway. Why should I worry about upsetting someone who, if he exists, should really be able to handle it with all his power and what-not.

Is little baby god sad? Diddums.

[orangebox21]

God is responsible for creating a man capable of choice, not of the choices man makes.

Oh, ooh, free will.

When my son was learning to walk, he wanted sometimes to cross roads. I didn't let him do so by himself, because it was obviously dangerous.

What you're telling me is that your god, knowing how powerful Satan was, turned Adam and Eve loose in the Garden with no knowledge of the difference between good and evil, that he knew Satan was in the garden, and he didn't know that Eve would take the applebite?

I'm just a mere mortal, and I can foresee when a bad situation raises risk to unacceptable levels. Your god is alleged to be omnipotent, yet he couldn't know that man would not always choose wisely?

If I know of an incipient murder, and I do nothing to stop it though I can safely do so, have I behaved in a moral fashion?

I submit that your understanding of moral responsibility is uselessly shallow.

If that is your standard of moral responsibility, then every wrong that your child does you are morally responsible for. After all you could have prevented it.

Every engineer, assembly line worker, and CEO of an automotive company is guilty of murder, after all they could prevent every automobile accident resulting in a fatality.

No one lives as if this is true.

Christianity teaches penance and personal responsibility, not self-loathing.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ke%2014:26

Christianity inculcates self-loathing in humans.

The scripture is true, your understanding of it is not.

I'm asking you to support your assertion.

Then please read what was in that stuff you quoted.

How is someone who sees himself as a sinner worthy of eternal punishment not a self-loathing one? Do you have a unique definition of "self-loathing" or something?

You can't ignore what I said and then ask me to support my assertion as if I never did.

You wrote:

But if you consider yourself a helpless sinner who deserves eternal hell, then that's definitely self-loathing.

I suggest you think better of yourself. Nothing you do should offend a grand God so deeply to the point that you deserve to suffer for the rest of your existence after you die.

The answer is right there in the quote.

Where is the support for your first statement?

You're missing the point. A person who accepts responsibility for his/her actions is not necessarily a self-loathing one. Christianity teaches penance and personal responsibility, not self-loathing.

It also teaches that you are unclean and all your so-called righteous deeds are like filthy rags. That's encouraging self-loathing.

Why does the acknowledgment of unmeritorious salvation equate to self-loathing?

Exactly. The New Testament is rather clear in many passages that if you don't loathe yourself, you will not be saved.

Consider the parable of the humble tax collector and the proud Pharisee. The Pharisee saw himself as a good person but was not justified before God. The tax collector, on the other hand, saw himself as a sinner and was justified. So self-loathing is better than loving who you are in God's eyes.

Why would you love the wrong you do? Think about it. You're supporting that a murderer not hate the part of themselves that willingly committed murder, but rather he/she should love that part of himself/herself.

You have to loathe your nature as a sinner in order to be saved ... is what the New Testament is saying.

Now that I [somewhat] agree with. But there is a difference between loathing one part of yourself and loathing your entire self.

We've all sinned Robby. In the past and in the future. The blood of Christ is sufficient payment for them all.

Well, under this paradigm, I take back what I said about the system being gamed. It wouldn't be necessary, as sin plays no role in punishment or reward once one is saved.

So I guess the winning play is "get saved quickly", and whatever happens after that is kosher.

You continue to fail to see that just because something is possible that does not necessitate it is moral.

What a bloody stupid system, it's worse than I thought. Get saved then go on a 90 year murder rampage and still get a cheap seat in heaven. Now that's morality.

Why would you go on a 90 year murder rampage? Because you can? I could also go on a 90 year habitat for humanity home building spree. Why not do that?

What a bloody stupid system, it's worse than I thought. Get saved then go on a 90 year murder rampage and still get a cheap seat in heaven. Now that's morality.

I anticipate a response along the lines of "but you wouldn't do that if you were saved", but that has no bearing on whether or not you can. And so far as I can tell, it's just an assertion that isn't backed by anything other than a desire to not let all the Hitlers into heaven. Most Christians see the problem with that, even if their system doesn't.

Despite a law, a person can still do the opposite of a law. Therefore laws are worthless as a moral system. No one lives as if this is true.

[Ravenshire]

Hah, I see no christians want to bite into this one.

The holy spirit is a piece of shit.

Is there any point me becoming christian now? I can't be saved. May as well go around ripping off candy from little kids and drawing rude pictures on windows.

Kind of a dumb rule.

What I've really never understood about this unforgivable sin shit is this:
You can call gawd a sick perverted bastard with no moral compass who fucks goats literally to death.

You can call sonny jeebus a bastard child who probably fucked (literally as well as figuratively) his own mother and shits on the table.

Up to this point we're still forgivable. But claim the holey spirit doesn't exist and your fucked, literally, forever.

Now, why the fuck does the holey spirit get special treatment?!?

---

Secondly, if in fact you are in a position unable to be forgiven, then multiplying your sins will multiply your punishment. While hell is the final destination of all unbelievers, the degree of suffering is related to the life of the unbeliever. The greater the crimes the greater the punishment.

Are you fucking kidding me?!? There are levels to being burned for all eternity?!?

Here's what christer eternity boils down to.

---

You are driving 45mph in a 20mph school zone. A police officer pulls you over and writes you a ticket. The ticket is $150, 4 points off your license, and a mandatory appearance in court. On the day of the court appearance, you stand before the judge and say: "I know I broke the law, I'm sorry I did, and I take full responsibility for both my actions and I will fulfill the legal punishment for them." Is your statement one of self-loathing?

No, but "Please forgive me Lord for I am but an unworthy sinner..."

That is, and that is what's taught by most denominations of the christer faith.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If that is your standard of moral responsibility, then every wrong that your child does you are morally responsible for. After all you could have prevented it.

Every engineer, assembly line worker, and CEO of an automotive company is guilty of murder, after all they could prevent every automobile accident resulting in a fatality.

No one lives as if this is true.

The obvious difference, which you've obviously missed, is that none of the humans in your analogy possess the omnipotence your god is alleged to have.

I'll invite you to rethink this post, and perhaps come back with something a little more in line with the relative attributes accorded the parties being discussed. So long as you insist on treating men as gods, you must abandon your god's ability to judge men. And so long as you insist on equating your infallible god with fallible men, you must desist urging others to worship such an unworthy deity.

The scripture is true, your understanding of it is not.

Well, what's holding your tongue? Speak for Jesus, already.

No, you're quiet because you know that there is no way you can explicate that verse without acknowledging the point that your religion inculcates self-loathing.

Am I wrong? You tell me. But -- get this -- you actually have to explain why. I think I understand that verse perfectly well. You must hate everything about life in order to gain heaven. "Everything" includes yourself.

[robvalue]

Well the Holy Spirit is probably the weak spot out of the trinity. God is a man in the sky, jesus is a man, and the Holy Spirit is... Something, don't ask questions! Don't attack the Holy Spirit!

Well I just fucked the Holy Spirit so hard I filled I up with my spirit. How many hell points do I have now? Is this how real life works? It feels far more like nothing is happening at all.

[orangebox21]

No, but "Please forgive me Lord for I am but an unworthy sinner..."

That is, and that is what's taught by most denominations of the christer faith.

Yes, Christianity teaches the taking responsibility for the wrong we have done (I am an unworthy sinner). Why does the acknowledgment of personal wrongdoing equate to self-loathing?

The obvious difference, which you've obviously missed, is that none of the humans in your analogy possess the omnipotence your god is alleged to have.

Which is why I didn't say you would be responsible for ALL the wrong that ALL children do. Nor did I say that engineers, factory workers, and CEO's of automotive company's would be responsible for ALL accidental deaths. Certainly you are in a position of absolute knowledge and power with respect to having a child. You can know with absolute certainty that your child will do wrong, and cause harm to another person. You can choose, with absolute power, to have or not have a child. Using the logical application of your moral system, you are responsible for the wrong that your child does. With the accusation you bring against God, you condemn yourself.

Well, what's holding your tongue? Speak for Jesus, already.

No, you're quiet because you know that there is no way you can explicate that verse without acknowledging the point that your religion inculcates self-loathing.

Am I wrong? You tell me. But -- get this -- you actually have to explain why. I think I understand that verse perfectly well. You must hate everything about life in order to gain heaven. "Everything" includes yourself.

And when Jesus says: I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. Do you believe Jesus when he said that?

---

There are hundreds of commentaries and websites devoted to explanations of Biblical verses. Certainly a little bit of homework and you could easily have understood my position.

It's an explanation through exaggeration. Our love for God should exceed our love for ourselves, family, etc. to such an extent it appears we hate ourselves, family, etc.

---

[GrandizerII]

Now that I [somewhat] agree with. But there is a difference between loathing one part of yourself and loathing your entire self.

For me, your nature is your self. If you loathe your nature that much, what part exactly is left of you that you do not loathe?