Chritians

[Sokratikos]

Interesting comments from a Humanist.
So you agree with the notion that you are deserving of a death penalty, that you offend and are estranged from God?

Well, no...

Why would I believe I deserve the death penalty? Why would I believe I offend God? Why would I believe I am estranged from God?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Well, no...

Why would I believe I deserve the death penalty?

Because the penalty for sin is death.
I take it that whether or not you give credence to the notion of sin, that based on Judeo/Christian scripture, you would be guilty of some form and degree of sin. I have met very few that would profess perfection... but some have done so in jest.

Why would I believe I offend God?

Well, if you think that you can please a perfect and Holy God who is offended by sin and do so in your own strength, then I suppose there wouldn't be much need in a Redeemer. I know that I am in need of one through; thus, the whole Christian profession and so on.

Isaiah 59:20
"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the LORD.

Why would I believe I am estranged from God?

Adam and Eve were estranged how, by being disobedient in one simple instruction?
Personally, I have proven that I was estranged, because I did not do what I ought to have done and I am still striving to be in accordance with the Spirit.
If you claim that you haven't sinned and do not have a need of a Redeemer, well then I suppose I have a choice between believing that claim and what I read and accept for not only myself, but as applicable to everyone:

Romans 3:21-26
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

 

[Sokratikos]

Fascinating- but again... Why would I believe it? You could get a copy of the Quran, and... why would I believe that one? Or the Gita?

Should I believe the "penalty for sins is death" just because you show me a book that says that? If I showed you a book that says you should pray 5 times a day toward Mecca or fry in the burning marble of hell, would you believe that just because I showed you a book that says that?

Also, what has that anything to do with a "humanist" having to believe the "cross is an offense" to him? I still don't feel offended by it. Should I take it you want me to be offended by it?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Fascinating- but again... Why would I believe it? You could get a copy of the Quran, and... why would I believe that one? Or the Gita?

Should I believe the "penalty for sins is death" just because you show me a book that says that? If I showed you a book that says you should pray 5 times a day toward Mecca or fry in the burning marble of hell, would you believe that just because I showed you a book that says that?

Also, what has that anything to do with a "humanist" having to believe the "cross is an offense" to him? I still don't feel offended by it. Should I take it you want me to be offended by it?

You ask "why", but ignore the current rejection "of".
Which is fine if you are seeking answers, but it is a failed attempt if trying to prove that there isn't an offense.

 

[Sokratikos]

No, I wasn't trying to prove there wasn't an offense, no.

For all we know, you're also ignoring the rejection "of" the commands of Allah through the seal of the Prophets, Mohammed in the most holy and perfect book, the Quran (I call this "throwing the ball back to you", i.e. showing that assuming your holy book true as gratuitous by comparing it to similar assertions by another religion, in this case, Islam).

Anyway, my rest is easy and peaceful at night with your death penalty, as I guess your rest also is with the death penalty of Allah.

Still not offended by any religious symbol.
Sokr.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No, I wasn't trying to prove there wasn't an offense, no.

For all we know, you're also ignoring the rejection "of" the commands of Allah through the seal of the Prophets, Mohammed in the most holy and perfect book, the Quran (I call this "throwing the ball back to you", i.e. showing that assuming your holy book true as gratuitous by comparing it to similar assertions by another religion, in this case, Islam).

Anyway, my rest is easy and peaceful at night with your death penalty, as I guess your rest also is with the death penalty of Allah.

Still not offended by any religious symbol.
Sokr.

You may be presuming too much there.
I would already be in alignment with much of Islam.

 

[elman]

Christians, are they moral and what makes them so?

Doing the loving thing is being moral. It is also being Christian. Therefore being Christian is being moral.

 

[elman]

some of the most immoral people I ever had the displeasure of knowing were (and still are I guess) christians and the some of the more moral folks I have known are non christians..

Some christians I know are the living example of good morals and some non christians I have run with (in my sordid past) are/were some of the lowest of bottom feeders who are (or were) lacking in any standards of morality.

So, to answer your question, yes and no. it depends on the person, although I think some non christians (and I have done this as well) will look harder and more so with a magnifying glass at the christian for faults and expect more from them due to the title they carry.

of course, this is just my opinion only.

Do you define a Christian as one who claims to be a Christian? I don't. I define a Christian as one who obeys the teaching of Jesus to love.

 

[Sokratikos]

Doing the loving thing is being moral. It is also being Christian. Therefore being Christian is being moral.

Evidently. True in the finest analytic a priori fashion... if we define Christian as "one who does the Christian thing", and we define "the Christian thing" as loving, it is by definition true that all Christians are loving. (Let's jump, for the sake of sheer philosophical pleasure, from "loving" to "moral", which is not an easy thing, but let's concede).

Nevertheless, it is humanly impossible to love all the time, and it is also a given that Christians fail (like the rest of us), so this would give us...

Christains are loving when they are "doing the Christian thing" ... and this is equivalent to...

Christians are loving when they are loving, which is a tautology, and, by definition, tautologies don't add to knowledge, so, in strict logic, we have said nothing here that enriches our knowledge.

Sokr.

---
Is this obnoxiously logical? Have I earned my hemlock yet?

 

[quatona]

Doing the loving thing is being moral. It is also being Christian. Therefore being Christian is being moral.

Doing the loving thing is being moral. It is also being atheistic. Therefore being atheistic is being moral.
Works like a charm, eh?

 

[quatona]

It's more of an issue of the cross being an offense to the world.

I don´t understand this reply, sorry.

 

[quatona]

I'll Pass, thank you.

So, which standard - since not the Christian - would you like to base our considerations on?

 

[elman]

Evidently. True in the finest analytic a priori fashion... if we define Christian as "one who does the Christian thing", and we define "the Christian thing" as loving, it is by definition true that all Christians are loving. (Let's jump, for the sake of sheer philosophical pleasure, from "loving" to "moral", which is not an easy thing, but let's concede).

Nevertheless, it is humanly impossible to love all the time, and it is also a given that Christians fail (like the rest of us), so this would give us...

Christains are loving when they are "doing the Christian thing" ... and this is equivalent to...

Christians are loving when they are loving, which is a tautology, and, by definition, tautologies don't add to knowledge, so, in strict logic, we have said nothing here that enriches our knowledge.

Sokr.

---
Is this obnoxiously logical? Have I earned my hemlock yet?

Which is why a big part of Christian theology is grace. However it is a mistake to say we are all the same because we are all unloving. Hitler was unloving and Mother Theresa was unloving in that she was not perfect in being loving. Therefore there is no difference between them. Wrong conclusion.

 

[MethodMan]

So, which standard - since not the Christian - would you like to base our considerations on?

How about God's?

 

[elman]

Doing the loving thing is being moral. It is also being atheistic. Therefore being atheistic is being moral.
Works like a charm, eh?

One small problem. Atheistic is not defined as being loving and cannot be defined that way. Therefore it does not work because you have misused the word Athietic. Being loving is not being atheistic. Again not correct use of words.

 

[quatona]

How about God's?

The god of whose concept?
Yours? Go ahead!

 

[MethodMan]

The god of whose concept?
Yours? Go ahead!

I wasn't exactly asking your permission.

 

[quatona]

One small problem. Atheistic is not defined as being loving and cannot be defined that way.

Christian is not defined as being loving, either. That´s your personal definition, and what would prevent me from applying my personal definition of atheism just like you apply yours of Christianity?

Therefore it does not work because you have misused the word Athietic.

Well, at least I haven´t misspelled it.

Being loving is not being atheistic. Again not correct use of words.

Yes, exactly, unless I personally define it so. Just like being loving is not being christian, unless you personally define it so.

 

[quatona]

I wasn't exactly asking your permission.

You were indeed asking for a proposal as to which moral standards our considerations should be based upon. I was giving you that which I found the fairest option (applying a person´s own standards), and you passed.
So why did you ask, in the first place?

 

[Sokratikos]

Evidently. True in the finest analytic a priori fashion... if we define Christian as "one who does the Christian thing", and we define "the Christian thing" as loving, it is by definition true that all Christians are loving. (Let's jump, for the sake of sheer philosophical pleasure, from "loving" to "moral", which is not an easy thing, but let's concede).

Nevertheless, it is humanly impossible to love all the time, and it is also a given that Christians fail (like the rest of us), so this would give us...

Christains are loving when they are "doing the Christian thing" ... and this is equivalent to...

Christians are loving when they are loving, which is a tautology, and, by definition, tautologies don't add to knowledge, so, in strict logic, we have said nothing here that enriches our knowledge.

Sokr.

Which is why a big part of Christian theology is grace. However it is a mistake to say we are all the same because we are all unloving. Hitler was unloving and Mother Theresa was unloving in that she was not perfect in being loving. Therefore there is no difference between them. Wrong conclusion.

What wrong conclusion? Yours or mine? Where in my post does it say that I equate all human beings?

I say -and quite literally BTW- that "it is also a given that Christians fail (like the rest of us)", meaning that both Christians and non-Christians fail. And that is a reasonable belief, even if I say so myself. I don't believe any of us, under any belief system, are morally perfect.