Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[Belinda]

Good, truth and beauty are not gods, and they're not a trinity. They are qualties...abstractions...adjectives, really. They require a noun: as in "good dinner," "true statement," "beautiful day." Alone, they don't signify anything particular to us.

But that they are not triune is also evident in the fact that they can also occur quite separately: as in a "good slap," a "true deception," and a "beautiful witch."

You just explained the nature of pornographic language.

I'm interested. In what way?

Pornography is identified by how it trivialises something that matters, often for some sort of personal gain on the part of the pornographer.
The underlying connotations of your examples are that 'good', 'true' ,and 'beautiful ' may pertain to perceived evil

I agree the abstract qualities "require a noun". This is the function of sages and seers. "Requiring a noun" is the religious quest.
There is evidence from history and the arts that beauty can bind together truth and goodness.

[Immanuel Can]

You just explained the nature of pornographic language.

I'm interested. In what way?

Pornography is identified by how it trivialises something that matters, often for some sort of personal gain on the part of the pornographer.

Yes, I see. That is a good example.

The underlying connotations of your examples are that 'good', 'true' ,and 'beautiful ' may pertain to perceived evil

Not “good,” I think: but the other two, for sure. Consider the femme fatale of fictional fame: she finds her power in beauty, but employs it for evil. And even truth can be corrupted by being spoken selectively, or in strategic circumstances: consider Banquo’s words to Macbeth:

“...oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.”

There is evidence from history and the arts that beauty can bind together truth and goodness.

“Can,” but apparently not “must.” As you point out, porn binds beauty to great evil.

[Belinda]

I'm interested. In what way?

Pornography is identified by how it trivialises something that matters, often for some sort of personal gain on the part of the pornographer.

Yes, I see. That is a good example.

The underlying connotations of your examples are that 'good', 'true' ,and 'beautiful ' may pertain to perceived evil

Not “good,” I think: but the other two, for sure. Consider the femme fatale of fictional fame: she finds her power in beauty, but employs it for evil. And even truth can be corrupted by being spoken selectively, or in strategic circumstances: consider Banquo’s words to Macbeth:

“...oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.”

There is evidence from history and the arts that beauty can bind together truth and goodness.

“Can,” but apparently not “must.” As you point out, porn binds beauty to great evil.

No I did not say that exactly . Porn is worse than a one off event as porn can infect a whole culture. Porn uses simplistic minds by persuading them that all has been said or portrayed that can be said or portrayed. The femme fatale is not a pornographer but is an exploiter of her beauty --- not the same as a pornographer who despises the very idea of beauty /truth. The femme fatale exploits a few dupes, but the pornographer's work plants a culture of cynicism. I agree with Banquo as you quoted him. Good quote well placed

There is no beauty unless there is also truth : there is no truth unless there is also beauty. These can't be separated .

[Immanuel Can]

Porn is worse than a one off event as porn can infect a whole culture.

So can untruths. They have a remarkable way of multiplying off each other. But were porn not superficially attractive, it would not be the raging success it has proved to be. So clearly, it has a beauty to those who desire it; but it’s neither true nor good.

The femme fatale is not a pornographer but is an exploiter of her beauty...

She’s something evil, though. That’s why she’s “fatale.” As the old song says, “That Girl is Poison."

I agree with Banquo as you quoted him. Good quote well placed

That’s the Bard, of course. He had insights, to be sure.

But the point is simple: truth can be used for evil. Every propagandist is aware of that.

There is no beauty unless there is also truth : there is no truth unless there is also beauty. These can't be separated .

I can’t see any reason at all to believe that’s true. Beauty can clearly be separated from truth — as when catfishers use filters to make ugly people beautiful; there’s no truth in those images, beautiful as they may be. And some truths are hard to look at. One of them is that not everything that’s beautiful is good or true.

[Belinda]

Porn is worse than a one off event as porn can infect a whole culture.

So can untruths. They have a remarkable way of multiplying off each other. But were porn not superficially attractive, it would not be the raging success it has proved to be. So clearly, it has a beauty to those who desire it; but it’s neither true nor good.

The femme fatale is not a pornographer but is an exploiter of her beauty...

She’s something evil, though. That’s why she’s “fatale.” As the old song says, “That Girl is Poison."

I agree with Banquo as you quoted him. Good quote well placed

That’s the Bard, of course. He had insights, to be sure.

But the point is simple: truth can be used for evil. Every propagandist is aware of that.

There is no beauty unless there is also truth : there is no truth unless there is also beauty. These can't be separated .

I can’t see any reason at all to believe that’s true. Beauty can clearly be separated from truth — as when catfishers use filters to make ugly people beautiful; there’s no truth in those images, beautiful as they may be. And some truths are hard to look at. One of them is that not everything that’s beautiful is good or true.

I am a Platonist .I believe in and trust the eternal form of Truth. Relative truths such as you list are shadows of eternal Truth. Shadows are deceptive and can be used to deceive.

[Immanuel Can]

Porn is worse than a one off event as porn can infect a whole culture.

So can untruths. They have a remarkable way of multiplying off each other. But were porn not superficially attractive, it would not be the raging success it has proved to be. So clearly, it has a beauty to those who desire it; but it’s neither true nor good.

The femme fatale is not a pornographer but is an exploiter of her beauty...

She’s something evil, though. That’s why she’s “fatale.” As the old song says, “That Girl is Poison."

I agree with Banquo as you quoted him. Good quote well placed

That’s the Bard, of course. He had insights, to be sure.

But the point is simple: truth can be used for evil. Every propagandist is aware of that.

There is no beauty unless there is also truth : there is no truth unless there is also beauty. These can't be separated .

I can’t see any reason at all to believe that’s true. Beauty can clearly be separated from truth — as when catfishers use filters to make ugly people beautiful; there’s no truth in those images, beautiful as they may be. And some truths are hard to look at. One of them is that not everything that’s beautiful is good or true.

I am a Platonist .I believe in and trust the eternal form of Truth. Relative truths such as you list are shadows of eternal Truth. Shadows are deceptive and can be used to deceive.

You believe in "Platonic forms"? Even Plato seems to have seen them as an heuristic, and you take them to be literal? You sound more like some sort of Gnostic when you say that.

[Belinda]

So can untruths. They have a remarkable way of multiplying off each other. But were porn not superficially attractive, it would not be the raging success it has proved to be. So clearly, it has a beauty to those who desire it; but it’s neither true nor good.


She’s something evil, though. That’s why she’s “fatale.” As the old song says, “That Girl is Poison."

That’s the Bard, of course. He had insights, to be sure.

But the point is simple: truth can be used for evil. Every propagandist is aware of that.


I can’t see any reason at all to believe that’s true. Beauty can clearly be separated from truth — as when catfishers use filters to make ugly people beautiful; there’s no truth in those images, beautiful as they may be. And some truths are hard to look at. One of them is that not everything that’s beautiful is good or true.

I am a Platonist .I believe in and trust the eternal form of Truth. Relative truths such as you list are shadows of eternal Truth. Shadows are deceptive and can be used to deceive.

You believe in "Platonic forms"? Even Plato seems to have seen them as an heuristic, and you take them to be literal? You sound more like some sort of Gnostic when you say that.

"Heuristic" is good. Thanks for that.

[ThinkOfOne]

That's a significant allegation. And I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a few cases where it holds true. But do you have any reason to suppose that the Christian case itself is like that, or are you only speaking about the fallibilities of a few human souls?

But let’s play along with that. Let’s pretend that not only are a few people of your acquaintance such hypocrites, but that no Christian could possibly explain why morality exists. We’ll pretend, even though it’s not true.

How would that help secularism?

That is, even if every Hindu, Islamist, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and every pagan of every kind, along with every Christian, were all incapable of grounding any morality. Would that imply that secularism could?

Evidently not. So secularism its own moral burden to meet, as is indicated by the OP. And it’s to that that our attention should be given, since no failure of any other system changes even one iota the problem for secularism.

That's a significant allegation. And I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a few cases where it holds true. But do you have any reason to suppose that the Christian case itself is like that, or are you only speaking about the fallibilities of a few human souls?

In my experience it is largely true: especially when it comes to Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians

I think you need to get out more, then. I've found things quite the opposite. So has Western civilization, historically.

But let’s play along with that. Let’s pretend that not only are a few people of your acquaintance such hypocrites, but that no Christian could possibly explain why morality exists. We’ll pretend, even though it’s not true.

How would that help secularism?

My post wasn't trying to "help secularism".

But that's what this thread is all about. Look at the heading. It's not about religion, it's about what happens to secularists with regard to morality.

Maybe it wasn't me who was off topic. But we can get back on. Do you have anything to offer about the actual subject of the thread?

You seem to have lost sight of how this played out. Toward that end, following is your exchange with GC

From a secular perspective, there's nothing that can be morally bad. I don't share that view, and I admit that it is one of many things that makes me glad not to be a secularist.

I don't share that view either and neither do all secularists. I'm not convinced that morality can't be understood by secularism. I think you're creating a very shallow and unfair interpretation of secularism.

In an attempt to lend Gary perspective I posted the following:

In my experience, since Christianity is built upon a foundation of sand, Christian apologists routinely create straw men, present double standards, etc. A never-ending parade of logical fallacies often capped by willful ignorance. If it were built on truth (a solid foundation), this would not be the case.

And subsequently followed that up with the following:

From what gather the only denominations that take the Bible so literally are Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians. Most are sensible enough to take stories like you mentioned as allegory. From what I gather, IC is one such Christian. They often take words and redefine them in an attempt to get them to fit their worldview. In other words, they square-peg them. "See, it does fit". Other words that immediately come to mind are "righteousness", "repentance", "keep", "love" - the list goes on and on. What's more they square-peg things in lots of other ways: interpreting Bible verses/passages, the political views they hold and on and on. It's a dishonest worldview for dishonest people. They live in a morass of double standards and hypocrisy. A veritable factory for "white-washed tombs", if not "sheep in wolves clothing".

Fairly recently I was talking to a Buddhist who was telling me that he had started going to a Christian church which surprise me. So I asked him if he was aware of core beliefs such as: Jesus paid for their sins; no one can make themselves righteous; for all intents and purposes, God grants them forgiveness for the asking; their sins are not their fault - it is because of the fallen nature of man. HIs response? "Sounds like the makings for psychopaths". Which it is. Not that all or even many necessarily become psychopaths, but the makings are there all the same. I know one such individual personally. That said, this does beget a strong tendency toward extreme narcissism, selfishness/self-centeredness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. When it comes down to it, they believe things are true because they believe them. I suspect that this is why so many of them are prone to demagoguery, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, believing in conspiracy theories, etc.

Now you're trying to "square-peg" your having gone on an illogical tangent. The OP was remarkably ill-conceived. There's no reason to talk about it, even if that were your actual intention. You're also wrong about the subject of this thread.

Now back to the matter at hand

That's a significant allegation. And I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a few cases where it holds true. But do you have any reason to suppose that the Christian case itself is like that, or are you only speaking about the fallibilities of a few human souls?

In my experience it is largely true: especially when it comes to Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians

I think you need to get out more, then. I've found things quite the opposite. So has Western civilization, historically.

You only find things "quite the opposite" because you are in agreement with"Fundametalist/Evangelical Christians" insofar as I can tell.

As to "Western civilization, historically" you're kidding yourself there also.

For one ""Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity" hasn't been around all that long. Not in its current incarnation anyway.

For another, Christianity was largely forced on "Western civilization, historically". Especially in the Americans which also saw the genocide of Native Americans in the US. See the following:

By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained of the estimated 5 million-plus living in North America before European contact.

The reasons for this racial genocide were multi-layered. Settlers, most of whom had been barred from inheriting property in Europe, arrived on American shores hungry for Indian land—and the abundant natural resources that came with it. Indians’ collusion with the British during the American Revolution and the War of 1812 exacerbated American hostility and suspicion toward them.
Even more fundamentally, Indigenous people were just too different: Their skin was dark. Their languages were foreign. And their world views and spiritual beliefs were beyond most white men’s comprehension. …all this stoked racial hatred and paranoia, making it easy to paint Indigenous peoples as pagan savages who must be killed in the name of civilization and Christianity.

From <https://www.history.com/articles/native ... ted-states>

Hatred and paranoia that continues to this day - at least in the US - with the charge largely being led by "Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians".

[Immanuel Can]

My post wasn't trying to "help secularism".

But that's what this thread is all about. Look at the heading. It's not about religion, it's about what happens to secularists with regard to morality.

Maybe it wasn't me who was off topic. But we can get back on. Do you have anything to offer about the actual subject of the thread?

You seem to have lost sight of how this played out.

No, I can see what the OP is. So can you, if you just look up.

In an attempt to lend Gary perspective I posted the following:

Fairly recently I was talking to a Buddhist who was telling me that he had started going to a Christian church which surprise me. So I asked him if he was aware of core beliefs such as: Jesus paid for their sins; no one can make themselves righteous; for all intents and purposes, God grants them forgiveness for the asking; their sins are not their fault - it is because of the fallen nature of man.

Your theology is wrong here, but you got the first part roughly correct. The second part, you missed completely. But we can fix that.

Christianity holds that your sins ARE your fault. And that unless you do something about that, by accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, you will not escape the judgment of a righteous God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to do to things: first, to repent, which means to change your way of thinking, so as to change your whole orientation to the world (called "metanoia," in the Greek), and then to put your whole faith in the ability of God Himself to supply the judicial righteousness that you simply do not have. And then, as per Romans 12:1-2, to change your entire life afterward, so as to live for God.

The OP was remarkably ill-conceived.

And yet it's entirely true. And it's true in your own case, manifestly. You are an Atheist, no? Or at least a cynical agnostic, if not that. But what did you just do? You tried to moralize, though Atheism provides absolutely no basis for moralizing, and agnosticisms don't provide any information at all. So not only is the OP well-conceived...it's clearly applicable to you, in the present moment.

If you think otherwise, explain what "other belief system" you are referring to for all your ethically-negative adjectives you try to apply to Christianity: which worldview justifies your value judgments?

I'll bet you have no answer.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I am a Platonist .I believe in and trust the eternal form of Truth. Relative truths such as you list are shadows of eternal Truth. Shadows are deceptive and can be used to deceive.

You believe in "Platonic forms"? Even Plato seems to have seen them as an heuristic, and you take them to be literal? You sound more like some sort of Gnostic when you say that.

"Heuristic" is good. Thanks for that.

I choose to believe in and trust your heuristic too Belinda, in my privilege. In yearning to be grateful and therefore kind, regardless of understanding.

[ThinkOfOne]

But that's what this thread is all about. Look at the heading. It's not about religion, it's about what happens to secularists with regard to morality.

Maybe it wasn't me who was off topic. But we can get back on. Do you have anything to offer about the actual subject of the thread?

You seem to have lost sight of how this played out.

No, I can see what the OP is. So can you, if you just look up.

In an attempt to lend Gary perspective I posted the following:

Fairly recently I was talking to a Buddhist who was telling me that he had started going to a Christian church which surprise me. So I asked him if he was aware of core beliefs such as: Jesus paid for their sins; no one can make themselves righteous; for all intents and purposes, God grants them forgiveness for the asking; their sins are not their fault - it is because of the fallen nature of man.

Your theology is wrong here, but you got the first part roughly correct. The second part, you missed completely. But we can fix that.

Christianity holds that your sins ARE your fault. And that unless you do something about that, by accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, you will not escape the judgment of a righteous God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to do to things: first, to repent, which means to change your way of thinking, so as to change your whole orientation to the world (called "metanoia," in the Greek), and then to put your whole faith in the ability of God Himself to supply the judicial righteousness that you simply do not have. And then, as per Romans 12:1-2, to change your entire life afterward, so as to live for God.

The OP was remarkably ill-conceived.

And yet it's entirely true. And it's true in your own case, manifestly. You are an Atheist, no? Or at least a cynical agnostic, if not that. But what did you just do? You tried to moralize, though Atheism provides absolutely no basis for moralizing, and agnosticisms don't provide any information at all. So not only is the OP well-conceived...it's clearly applicable to you, in the present moment.

If you think otherwise, explain what "other belief system" you are referring to for all your ethically-negative adjectives you try to apply to Christianity: which worldview justifies your value judgments?

I'll bet you have no answer.

Actually, I advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus.

With every post, you continue to show that you are either unable or unwilling to discuss this in good faith. As but one example, the way you repeatedly take a snippet from what I wrote out of context, create a straw man and attack it, whilst failing to address the main points. Even going so far as to underhandedly delete the main points from what you quote from posts of mine in an attempt to deceive others.

For the record, here is the entirety of one such post.

From what gather the only denominations that take the Bible so literally are Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians. Most are sensible enough to take stories like you mentioned as allegory. From what I gather, IC is one such Christian. They often take words and redefine them in an attempt to get them to fit their worldview. In other words, they square-peg them. "See, it does fit". Other words that immediately come to mind are "righteousness", "repentance", "keep", "love" - the list goes on and on. What's more they square-peg things in lots of other ways: interpreting Bible verses/passages, the political views they hold and on and on. It's a dishonest worldview for dishonest people. They live in a morass of double standards and hypocrisy. A veritable factory for "white-washed tombs", if not "sheep in wolves clothing".

Fairly recently I was talking to a Buddhist who was telling me that he had started going to a Christian church which surprise me. So I asked him if he was aware of core beliefs such as: Jesus paid for their sins; no one can make themselves righteous; for all intents and purposes, God grants them forgiveness for the asking; their sins are not their fault - it is because of the fallen nature of man. HIs response? "Sounds like the makings for psychopaths". Which it is. Not that all or even many necessarily become psychopaths, but the makings are there all the same. I know one such individual personally. That said, this does beget a strong tendency toward extreme narcissism, selfishness/self-centeredness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. When it comes down to it, they believe things are true because they believe them. I suspect that this is why so many of them are prone to demagoguery, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, believing in conspiracy theories, etc.

I wrote the above with Christians such as yourself in mind.

Your theology is wrong here, but you got the first part roughly correct. The second part, you missed completely. But we can fix that.

Christianity holds that your sins ARE your fault. And that unless you do something about that, by accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, you will not escape the judgment of a righteous God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to do to things: first, to repent, which means to change your way of thinking, so as to change your whole orientation to the world (called "metanoia," in the Greek), and then to put your whole faith in the ability of God Himself to supply the judicial righteousness that you simply do not have. And then, as per Romans 12:1-2, to change your entire life afterward, so as to live for God.

The above is a straw man as a response to the following statement: "their sins are not their fault - it is because of the fallen nature of man." From the context it is apparent that the word "their" is referring to Christians. NOT to people in general. Yet you responded as if it were referring to the latter.

Think about it. Why do Christians continue to commit sin after "accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ"? Do not many Christians believe that because of "the fallen nature of man", they cannot cease to sin? How is that not an excuse for "their" continuing to commit sin? A way of shifting the blame for their sins to "the fallen nature of man"?

Put that with the other core beliefs that I cited, there's no escaping the fact that it does ""sound like the makings for psychopaths". It does "beget a strong tendency toward extreme narcissism, selfishness/self-centeredness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc." This is especially true of Fundamentalist / Evangelical Christians.

It's as if Jesus said the following with people such as yourself in mind:
Matthew 7
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

There's no reasonably escaping the fact that "evildoers" are those who commit sin. It is to them that Jesus says "I never knew you. Away from me".
They can say to Him "Lord, Lord" all they want. The can "prophesy in [His] name" and so on. It doesn't matter. So long as they continue to commit sin, it's as if Jesus never even knew them.

BTW, if you want to discuss "morality" in and of itself, then start a new thread on it. As part of the OP explicitly state on what you base your belief that Christians have a "basis for morality" while "atheists / agnostics" do not. Make your best case.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to have lost sight of how this played out.

No, I can see what the OP is. So can you, if you just look up.

In an attempt to lend Gary perspective I posted the following:

Your theology is wrong here, but you got the first part roughly correct. The second part, you missed completely. But we can fix that.

Christianity holds that your sins ARE your fault. And that unless you do something about that, by accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, you will not escape the judgment of a righteous God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to do to things: first, to repent, which means to change your way of thinking, so as to change your whole orientation to the world (called "metanoia," in the Greek), and then to put your whole faith in the ability of God Himself to supply the judicial righteousness that you simply do not have. And then, as per Romans 12:1-2, to change your entire life afterward, so as to live for God.

The OP was remarkably ill-conceived.

And yet it's entirely true. And it's true in your own case, manifestly. You are an Atheist, no? Or at least a cynical agnostic, if not that. But what did you just do? You tried to moralize, though Atheism provides absolutely no basis for moralizing, and agnosticisms don't provide any information at all. So not only is the OP well-conceived...it's clearly applicable to you, in the present moment.

If you think otherwise, explain what "other belief system" you are referring to for all your ethically-negative adjectives you try to apply to Christianity: which worldview justifies your value judgments?

I'll bet you have no answer.

Actually, I advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus.

I'll still bet you can't explain how Atheism can warrant any value judgments. Nobody can.

With every post, you continue to show that you are either unable or unwilling to discuss this in good faith. As but one example, the way you repeatedly take a snippet from what I wrote out of context, create a straw man and attack it, whilst failing to address the main points. Even going so far as to underhandedly delete the main points from what you quote from posts of mine in an attempt to deceive others.

On the contrary: I cut only the stuff that doesn't matter, and focus on what does. And I expecially ignore things like gratuitious vituperation, insults, slanders, misrepresentations, and such. I try not to expose my interlocutors to similar things.

...this does beget a strong tendency toward extreme narcissism, selfishness/self-centeredness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. When it comes down to it, they believe things are true because they believe them. I suspect that this is why so many of them are prone to demagoguery, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, believing in conspiracy theories, etc.

I wrote the above with Christians such as yourself in mind.

And I didn't bother with it, because it was misguided and untrue. I don't know what else is worth saying about that. It was just a rant, devoid of any evidence whatsoever. It wasn't worth anybody's time.

Your theology is wrong here, but you got the first part roughly correct. The second part, you missed completely. But we can fix that.

Christianity holds that your sins ARE your fault. And that unless you do something about that, by accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, you will not escape the judgment of a righteous God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to do to things: first, to repent, which means to change your way of thinking, so as to change your whole orientation to the world (called "metanoia," in the Greek), and then to put your whole faith in the ability of God Himself to supply the judicial righteousness that you simply do not have. And then, as per Romans 12:1-2, to change your entire life afterward, so as to live for God.

The above is a straw man

You should look up "straw man fallacy." But in addition, you should do some study of basic Protestant theology. Because what I said was quite correct.

Think about it. Why do Christians continue to commit sin after "accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ"?

Because they're human, and salvation is not total yet. If you knew basic Protestant theology, you'd already know that only a very few, marginal groups believe in what they call "entire salvation": i.e. the perfectability on earth of the human soul. Nobody else does.

How is it that you claim to be a proponent of "the gospel," and don't know these things? Every Sunday School kid is taught them.

How is that not an excuse for "their" continuing to commit sin?

I see you definitely haven't read the book of Romans. Try chapter 6. It covers this perfectly.

BTW, if you want to discuss "morality" in and of itself, then start a new thread on it.

The original thread is as above. I'm on topic. But you're trying to shift it to a critique of Christians. So go back up to the top of the page, and read the OP again.

I can see you just don't know what you're talking about. You don't know enough Christian theology even to raise a reasonable critique. Everything you're complaining about is already abundantly covered in Scripture itself.

[ThinkOfOne]

No, I can see what the OP is. So can you, if you just look up.


Your theology is wrong here, but you got the first part roughly correct. The second part, you missed completely. But we can fix that.

Christianity holds that your sins ARE your fault. And that unless you do something about that, by accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, you will not escape the judgment of a righteous God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to do to things: first, to repent, which means to change your way of thinking, so as to change your whole orientation to the world (called "metanoia," in the Greek), and then to put your whole faith in the ability of God Himself to supply the judicial righteousness that you simply do not have. And then, as per Romans 12:1-2, to change your entire life afterward, so as to live for God.


And yet it's entirely true. And it's true in your own case, manifestly. You are an Atheist, no? Or at least a cynical agnostic, if not that. But what did you just do? You tried to moralize, though Atheism provides absolutely no basis for moralizing, and agnosticisms don't provide any information at all. So not only is the OP well-conceived...it's clearly applicable to you, in the present moment.

If you think otherwise, explain what "other belief system" you are referring to for all your ethically-negative adjectives you try to apply to Christianity: which worldview justifies your value judgments?

I'll bet you have no answer.

Actually, I advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus.

I'll still bet you can't explain how Atheism can warrant any value judgments. Nobody can.

With every post, you continue to show that you are either unable or unwilling to discuss this in good faith. As but one example, the way you repeatedly take a snippet from what I wrote out of context, create a straw man and attack it, whilst failing to address the main points. Even going so far as to underhandedly delete the main points from what you quote from posts of mine in an attempt to deceive others.

On the contrary: I cut only the stuff that doesn't matter, and focus on what does. And I expecially ignore things like gratuitious vituperation, insults, slanders, misrepresentations, and such. I try not to expose my interlocutors to similar things.

...this does beget a strong tendency toward extreme narcissism, selfishness/self-centeredness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. When it comes down to it, they believe things are true because they believe them. I suspect that this is why so many of them are prone to demagoguery, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, believing in conspiracy theories, etc.

I wrote the above with Christians such as yourself in mind.

And I didn't bother with it, because it was misguided and untrue. I don't know what else is worth saying about that. It was just a rant, devoid of any evidence whatsoever. It wasn't worth anybody's time.

Your theology is wrong here, but you got the first part roughly correct. The second part, you missed completely. But we can fix that.

Christianity holds that your sins ARE your fault. And that unless you do something about that, by accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, you will not escape the judgment of a righteous God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to do to things: first, to repent, which means to change your way of thinking, so as to change your whole orientation to the world (called "metanoia," in the Greek), and then to put your whole faith in the ability of God Himself to supply the judicial righteousness that you simply do not have. And then, as per Romans 12:1-2, to change your entire life afterward, so as to live for God.

The above is a straw man

You should look up "straw man fallacy." But in addition, you should do some study of basic Protestant theology. Because what I said was quite correct.

Think about it. Why do Christians continue to commit sin after "accepting the salvation that is in Jesus Christ"?

Because they're human, and salvation is not total yet. If you knew basic Protestant theology, you'd already know that only a very few, marginal groups believe in what they call "entire salvation": i.e. the perfectability on earth of the human soul. Nobody else does.

How is it that you claim to be a proponent of "the gospel," and don't know these things? Every Sunday School kid is taught them.

How is that not an excuse for "their" continuing to commit sin?

I see you definitely haven't read the book of Romans. Try chapter 6. It covers this perfectly.

BTW, if you want to discuss "morality" in and of itself, then start a new thread on it.

The original thread is as above. I'm on topic. But you're trying to shift it to a critique of Christians. So go back up to the top of the page, and read the OP again.

I can see you just don't know what you're talking about. You don't know enough Christian theology even to raise a reasonable critique. Everything you're complaining about is already abundantly covered in Scripture itself.

Unsurprisingly you've come back with more of the same. Even as you deny doing it. Evidently your dishonesty knows no bounds.

The gospel preached by Jesus is not the "gospel" that Christians believe which has the Pauline "gospel" as its foundation.

With the gospel preached by Jesus words mean what they actually mean. Unlike with the "gospel" that Christians believe. As but a few examples, with the gospel preached by Jesus:
"Righteousness" actually entails not committing sin.
"Repentance" actually entails ceasing to commit sin.
"Keeping commandments" actually entails not breaking commandments.

Christians like you believe that they entail something less than that.

It's just as I said:

From what gather the only denominations that take the Bible so literally are Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians. Most are sensible enough to take stories like you mentioned as allegory. From what I gather, IC is one such Christian. They often take words and redefine them in an attempt to get them to fit their worldview. In other words, they square-peg them. "See, it does fit". Other words that immediately come to mind are "righteousness", "repentance", "keep", "love" - the list goes on and on. What's more they square-peg things in lots of other ways: interpreting Bible verses/passages, the political views they hold and on and on. It's a dishonest worldview for dishonest people. They live in a morass of double standards and hypocrisy. A veritable factory for "white-washed tombs", if not "sheep in wolves clothing".

Fairly recently I was talking to a Buddhist who was telling me that he had started going to a Christian church which surprise me. So I asked him if he was aware of core beliefs such as: Jesus paid for their sins; no one can make themselves righteous; for all intents and purposes, God grants them forgiveness for the asking; their sins are not their fault - it is because of the fallen nature of man. HIs response? "Sounds like the makings for psychopaths". Which it is. Not that all or even many necessarily become psychopaths, but the makings are there all the same. I know one such individual personally. That said, this does beget a strong tendency toward extreme narcissism, selfishness/self-centeredness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. When it comes down to it, they believe things are true because they believe them. I suspect that this is why so many of them are prone to demagoguery, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, believing in conspiracy theories, etc.

It's as if Jesus said the following with people such as yourself in mind:
Luke 11
34Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness. 35So watch out that the light in you is not darkness. 36Therefore if your whole body is full of light, without any dark part, it will be wholly illuminated, as when the lamp illuminates you with its light.”

Matthew 6
22“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then, if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. So if the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

Your eye is not clear. If it were, you'd know that the whole body of an individual needs to be "full of light, without any dark part". When that is true, they cannot commit sin. But you believe that they can.

Therefore, your whole body is full of darkness, even though you believe that the darkness in you is light. How great is that darkness! You abide in the outer darkness.

[Immanuel Can]

Unsurprisingly you've come back with more of the same.

What...the truth? The facts? Straight talk? Yes, you'll have to endure some more of that.

The gospel preached by Jesus is not the "gospel" that Christians believe which has the Pauline "gospel" as its foundation.

Oh. I suspected as much: you're making up your own "gospel."

Well, I'm speaking about the Biblical one. You, I have no idea what you're speaking about. And lacking a basis of agreement, I don't know how much progress it's possible for us to make.

[ThinkOfOne]

Unsurprisingly you've come back with more of the same.

What...the truth? The facts? Straight talk? Yes, you'll have to endure some more of that.

The gospel preached by Jesus is not the "gospel" that Christians believe which has the Pauline "gospel" as its foundation.

Oh. I suspected as much: you're making up your own "gospel."

Well, I'm speaking about the Biblical one. You, I have no idea what you're speaking about. And lacking a basis of agreement, I don't know how much progress it's possible for us to make.

Even when your deceitful tactics are placed in front of you, you dishonestly either ignore them or create straw men so that you can attack them.

The gospel preached by Jesus is also "Biblical". The truth is that you not only don't believe Jesus, you don't even understand Him. Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of HIS words: "[His] sheep follow [His] voice"; "[His] true disciples abide in [His] word"; you will be judged by His word. Not the word of Paul. Not the word of the other NT writers. HIS word and His word only.

John 12
48The one who rejects Me and does not accept My teachings has one who judges him: the word which I spoke.

John 8
43Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot listen to My word. 44You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I say the truth, you do not believe Me. 46Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?

If you remain true to form, you'll continue to ignore what Jesus had to say. Just as you have with the other words of Jesus that I have placed before you.