SIN IS STILL SIN

[Skidder]

You already do, pal, you already do. Don't blame me for your behaviour.


That is wrong. But I forgive you for being wrong.

You better make sure your religion is the truth. Because the bible does not agree with your religion that the dirt is you eternal home. Worshiping the dirt will not save you from your sins. Jesus is the only forgiveness of sins. Without Him you die in your sins.

 

[Freodin]

You better make sure your religion is the truth. Because the bible does not agree with your religion that the dirt is you eternal home. Worshiping the dirt will not save you from your sins. Jesus is the only forgiveness of sins. Without Him you die in your sins.

Perhaps, if just for a while, just for once, you try to listen to what other people think or say, you might find a better way to approach them.

If I were to describe your faith as a cult of cannibalistic and vampiristic magical rituals to extent your mortal life, would you think I know what I am talking about? Would you tell me that I am wrong in this description?

And would you, as the one who practices this faith and should have a basic understanding of it, be a little bit offended if I just kept repeating my interpretation of your worldview?

Consider, friend, conversation is a two-way procedure.

 

[Skidder]

Perhaps, if just for a while, just for once, you try to listen to what other people think or say, you might find a better way to approach them.

If I were to describe your faith as a cult of cannibalistic and vampiristic magical rituals to extent your mortal life, would you think I know what I am talking about? Would you tell me that I am wrong in this description?

And would you, as the one who practices this faith and should have a basic understanding of it, be a little bit offended if I just kept repeating my interpretation of your worldview?

Consider, friend, conversation is a two-way procedure.

If the bible holds no threat to you, why are you even here proclaiming it is untrue? The bible says there is only one solution for the sin problem, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins. Do you troll looking to disrupt, do you hate God's word that much?

 

[Freodin]

If the bible holds no threat to you, why are you even here proclaiming it is untrue? The bible says there is only one solution for the sin problem, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins. Do you troll looking to disrupt, do you hate God's word that much?

I am not talking about the Bible. I am talking about you.

Now you are here, making statements about me that are not true. I don't like that, so I try to correct it.
And you keep doing it. You keep "proclaiming that I am untrue." Does that mean I am a threat to you, or that you hate me? Or are you simply trolling me?

In fact, I am trying to help you. To tell you something about me, about my atheism and about atheism in general, so you might get a better connection with the people you are trying to talk at. Perhaps even so far that you will start to talk to them.

Rule one for every salesman: understand your audience.

 

[topher694]

You are free to keep defending the world's definition of sin, and I will keep defending what Christ really died for. But there is no healing from a false definition of sin.

You want to call sin a sin? Ok. You are lying.

I absolutely said nothing like this. I said the opposite in the same post, you ignored that, took a portion out of context and distorted it. That's dishonest. And if we are calling sin a sin, it is a lie.

Again, I am not in any way saying we should ignore or dillute sin. I'm saying we START with compassion and fruit. We give people a reason to consider what we say.

 

[topher694]

If you think you can do better.... I am always open for a nice and polite conversation.


I can only speak for myself, and those I have found to have a similar view... but that sounds a tiny bit... dishonest.

Skidder's post #125 basically spelled it out. It's not often that it is so clearly said, and he will of course claim that he meant it differently.
But that's the basic gist: Christianity offer - sells - a cure. In order for people to accept - buy - your cure, you have to convince them that they are ill. You have to find - or invent - an illness, so that your cure will be needed.

That's not a new concept, or one that is limited to religion or Christianity. But it exists.

So there is his approach: convince people that they are ill - "sinful"... and offer the cure: "Jesus". It's not nice, and it may not be true... but it is direct and some kind of honest.

But when you are nice to people - "help them, encourage them, bless them, love them"... and your endgoal is still to sell them your cure for their illness... their "behaviour"... that is a little bit of a dishonest selling tactic, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not one to debate scriptural meanings unless someone is truly seeking guidance. I just find it unfruitful. Granted, sometimes that distinction can be blurry.

In reference to your last paragraph, think about it more like this: are you as kind to others as you'd like to be? Are there things in your life you feel you could do better at? Temper, impulsiveness, or something like that? Are there hurts, betrayals that you struggle to deal with? I think it's fair to say we all could do better in these areas. The "cure" you mention is simply empowering people to live better and overcome the bad stuff that has happened to them.

The secret to Christianity, that admittedly an unbeliever likely cannot understand (heck many believers clearly don't), is that as you sincerely pursue these simple universally positive virtues (pursue meaning through Christ), God will begin to work on the more "controversial" issues as well. Meaning you'll begin to see such topics in a different light due to the changes happening in you. In other words I don't need to convince you, God will eventually pursuade you. My job, then, is help guide those who are willing... Without compromising my convictions to do so.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Morality doesn't need to be traced to a tradition, it needs principles we can deduce without appealing to authority to make us obey. By all means demonstrate your otherwise unfounded claims about how you believe ancient Jews and Christians believed based purely on referencing religious texts and not historical texts

You were taught poorly and mistakenly by people who either didn't care about the truth of evolutionary claims, but just wanted to smear it, or genuinely thought they were in the right, but weren't

I don't think I accused you of saying it was universally bad, but your perspective leaves no room for compromise because you're convinced we have to obey your god's commands even if they don't make sense, a classic defense based on little more than faith and sentiment. And your "biblical" claim is still subjective, not something one can demonstrate consistently apart from vague consensus among a fragmented faith system

You can be nice, but still have a sense of contempt in that you don't even want to engage with the consideration you might be wrong, but find ANY way to deflect and make it about someone else attacking you rather than you being intellectually dishonest

If twisting my words and ignoring anything I say that counters you helps you sleep at night, then okay. I didn't want to engage with you not because I'm not willing to accept I'm wrong, but because you keep mixing/matching my words to fit your narrative and--I hate to say this--despite you claiming that I'm wrong, you never explained what was 'correct' outside of your own opinion. All you'd have to do to find out what I learned is do a quick google search on 'how morality evolved' and you'd find out very quickly that it's not so cut-and-dry as you claim. Even so, your claims still makes no sense either, because you imply that morality was just a 'human construct' that came about for little to no reason if it wasn't for the sake of survival as a species or without the influence of religion...which goes against both a religious view, and a scientific view. No matter how you dice it, morals were either imprinted unto to us via an external source somehow, or it evolved for survival. Seriously. I've read many, many writings on the subject and even darwin himself said that morality contradicted natural selection and was a 'paradox'--but even so, we cannot imitate what we don't know, so the concept of good and bad had to exist before morality in humans, to an extent.

I said I didn't agree with the scientific brand of morality because I think(and rightly so)that morality via natural means could entail horrible results, considering the subjective nature of it.

Also not, I'm not being intellectually dishonest. You've never given any actual proof that I've committed any fallacies, other than your own opinion. I'd have to be either extremely weak-willed or stupid to take that seriously.

We've long since outgrown religion, people cling to it because they're afraid of breaking tradition and not conforming to social expectations, part of the reason religion thrived so easily

Morality didn't evolve, it grew, we always had it, we just didn't mature it enough

Virtues are principles that are beneficial, it doesn't have to be survival instinct and it doesn't have to exist in nature. It also doesn't have to exist in itself, it's descriptive models we use to gauge the effects of our actions, it's a human construct,

Something to consider is merely that you think it's the majority, but that's not indicative of truth or even value to something, it's conformity

If people can't own up to the frailty and abhorrent things in their religious texts, they're being intellectually dishonest. Not all Muslims can admit that and not all Christians can, but suggesting that it's just a matter of opinion in terms of that is disingenuous

Going to be a little less polite here; I think you have a hate hard-on for religion(or that's at least how you come off), and you try to cover up that bias with a lot of 'intellectual talk' and woke enlightenment. You very clearly have no desire to try and actually understand anything from a different angle(something you seem to be projecting onto me a lot), and that's why I'm done debating you. I've already heard the things you're saying from many other people, and believe me I've tried to examine it from that perspective--but it does not check out imo, and it's usually a weak argument used by people who dislike religion and make it a big point to make sure everything is about these vague 'morals' and 'if you can't see what you're doing is wrong, you're [this or that]'.

I'm picking and choosing who I debate based on what is beneficial for myself and my pursuit of knowledge. You offer me nothing new or interesting, and I really don't enjoy debating people who have to have things explained to them frequently. This will be my last reply(seriously)

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

So... all of these denominations with their differing doctrine all have to strive for "biblical accuracy"... yet they all have thse "differing doctrines"?


See... you get get a lot of different interpretations from such a simple text. That's the problem: we are faced with very specific questions, but can only derive very general answers from the "holy texts".


I don't think there's a lot of sex involved in the marriage between Jesus and his bride. And would that make "the church" a woman? Would that make all the men in the church women? Isn't that... well... homosexuality?


I'd agree.
And just in the same way, a direction at a spefic group of people in a certain time and place could be: if you want to be in a homosexual relationship, fine. Just love each other.


But it need not be, from a religious point of view. "God's plan" and all that. Monks and nuns do not quite fit into "God's plan" as well... they don't "come together". But they are accepted.
And, yes, this is "considered" ok, and homosexuality "immoral". But there is no need for that. This is just "humans considering".


No one ever accused religion of being consistent.
Excuse me when I - necessarily - have to view that from a perspective of an outsider. It is one of the main reasons why I am an outsider, a non-christian, an atheist.

Everything, really absolutely everything a religion states appears to be very much human beings trying to find answers for their questions... and then attributing divine authority to their answers. Even if these answers are vague. Even if these answers contradict each other.



I have the vague feeling that you misunderstand the concept of "secularism". It doesn't mean "atheism" or "being anti-religion". It is basically the biblical idea of "giving to Caesar" and "giving to God". The realization that there is - must be - a sphere where religion is - must be! - irrelevant.

Even Christians are still humans, and as much as they want to seperate themselves from "the world"... they ARE (part of) the world.


Sacrificing people has mostly fallen out of favor by now... but you may want to consider researching "iconoclasm" for the question of "worshipping idols". Or some, erm, "debates" between catholics and protestants.


If that's what you want... fine. But you have to be aware that those who forbid woman pastors or allow gay pastors are claiming just the same: being certain that they are not wrong and trying to preserve scripture.

I hope you can understand why this seems to be a very pointless endeavour from the view of a non-christian.

I don't want to spend much more time on this thread, so I'm gonna try to condense my thoughts real quick(Sorry I can't get into more specifics)

My problem with your approach to all of this is that you don't seem to be applying your logic with the Bible in mind(which is problematic, if you're trying to make an honest debate about Christianity). Since...you know, Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's word above all else, because we believe it to be God's word. Philosophy/moral ethics are fine--and even I dare say a necessity--but unless it has a scriptural basis, it's useless in the Christian sphere.

We were already having problems with people dividing the church and 'picking and choosing' who they follow/what doctrine they follow, all the way back in the times of the Apostles(it is covered several times in the bible).

The main problems with peoples' interpretation of scripture are usually because of these three reasons;
1) Not accounting for biblical or historical context
2) Basing doctrine on translations without regard for the original texts(a lot of translations are very inaccurate)
3) Not taking into account the original language and meanings(which is already difficult, as the bible was written in languages that are very old and hard to understand)

Also, your point about nuns and monks is incorrect. Biblically, as I said, celibacy is seen as very good and even at times favorable in the Bible--not even just with Paul, but also with the eunuchs back then as well. I also think you take the 'marriage image' in the wrong way...I'm illustrating a point that the idea of marriage back then was so important, it was used as an analogy for Christ and His church, especially given how the church is called his 'bride' and not his 'partner'.

The primary problem with differing doctrines is because people already have their predetermined view--and then they 'twist' scripture to fit that view. This is also something we were warned about in the bible. (as for the 'catholics and idols thing'...Catholicism has definitely fallen from grace more than once. I'm not even going to go there lol)

I'm aware, as well, that we cannot be separated from the world; but the Bible acknowledges it too, but it also acknowledges that we're to be 'different' from the world, and that if we are 'of the world', we do not reside in Him.


Finally thanks for catching me on the secularism bit. To be honest, I actually never bothered looking up the meaning because I always heard it in-context used in referring to nonreligious groups--so I thought that's what it meant LOL. I'll take note of that next time.

 

[topher694]

I don't want to spend much more time on this thread, so I'm gonna try to condense my thoughts real quick(Sorry I can't get into more specifics)

I've enjoyed your posts

 

[Freodin]

I'm not one to debate scriptural meanings unless someone is truly seeking guidance. I just find it unfruitful. Granted, sometimes that distinction can be blurry.

As do I. I just find it interesting to see how some people try defend the undefensible.
If you are not into that... I applaud you for that.

In reference to your last paragraph, think about it more like this: are you as kind to others as you'd like to be? Are there things in your life you feel you could do better at? Temper, impulsiveness, or something like that? Are there hurts, betrayals that you struggle to deal with? I think it's fair to say we all could do better in these areas. The "cure" you mention is simply empowering people to live better and overcome the bad stuff that has happened to them.

I'm doing quite well, thank you. Yes, we all "could do better in these areas"... but, hey, who of us couldn't do better in anything?

The secret to Christianity, that admittedly an unbeliever likely cannot understand (heck many believers clearly don't), is that as you sincerely pursue these simple universally positive virtues (pursue meaning through Christ), God will begin to work on the more "controversial" issues as well. Meaning you'll begin to see such topics in a different light due to the changes happening in you. In other words I don't need to convince you, God will eventually pursuade you. My job, then, is help guide those who are willing... Without compromising my convictions to do so.

But here's the rub. I do "sincerely pursue these simple universally positive virtues". I am aware of the flaws I have, but I am generally that what you would call a "good person".
I am not doing these things for any goal, and reason or intent. It's just who I am.

Would I do better at that by "pursuing [these virtues] through Christ". I don't see it. I wouldn't be more polite, or more friendly, or more helpful "through Christ". Especially not because I do not believe "in Christ". I would betray one of the virtures that I hold dear: honesty.
And that is the secret of Christianity that I have found, through some decades of observation: God only "begins to work" on you when you do no longer need it.

 

[Freodin]

I don't want to spend much more time on this thread, so I'm gonna try to condense my thoughts real quick(Sorry I can't get into more specifics)

No problem. I enjoyed the conversation. Perhaps we can continue this exchange at some other point.

Whatever you do: have a nice Christmas.

 

[topher694]

But here's the rub. I do "sincerely pursue these simple universally positive virtues". I am aware of the flaws I have, but I am generally that what you would call a "good person".
I am not doing these things for any goal, and reason or intent. It's just who I am.

Would I do better at that by "pursuing [these virtues] through Christ". I don't see it. I wouldn't be more polite, or more friendly, or more helpful "through Christ". Especially not because I do not believe "in Christ". I would betray one of the virtures that I hold dear: honesty.

Well this just highlights one of the fundamental tenants of Christianity. Do you think you can be "good enough" by your own strength or not. If you think you are, then obviously there would be little appeal in Christianity or need for it. What I have observed is that the root of much of the animosity towards Christians is the suggestion otherwise. But for us to abandon that idea to make others feel better would be, dishonest.

However there are moments and events in life that seem to have a greater tendency to cause those who are "good" in their own power to reconsider those beliefs and begin to consider a higher source. I've seen it many times.

So you do what you think you need to do, I'm not trying to change your mind. I just hope that when the most difficult moments in life arise that you (or anyone) are not completely closed to the idea.

And that is the secret of Christianity that I have found, through some decades of observation: God only "begins to work" on you when you do no longer need it.

Now this seems borderline dishonest and unkind. You've never experienced it, yet can speak for and know how God has worked in the lives of billions of people better than them? You know what they need, when they need it and when they don't? This site and Christianity in general is full of people professing how God saved them in various and amazing ways. Sounds like you might believe in God after all, as long as that God is you.

 

[muichimotsu]

I apologize for the ambiguity. My concern isn't about the atheist postings, but the Christian ones. They are truly not representative of Christians, not even conservative ones. But I really worry that people who don't understand Christianity will read threads like this and think that they represent what Christians are like. Unfortunately there's no real way to respond, because anything you say just drags you into the mud, too.

Is there really any true unfiltered Christianity that doesn't involve interpretation in a particular way, though? That's the reason people continue to engage in this quibbling, there isn't some pure form of the revelations

 

[Freodin]

Well this just highlights one of the fundamental tenants of Christianity. Do you think you can be "good enough" by your own strength or not. If you think you are, then obviously there would be little appeal in Christianity or need for it. What I have observed is that the root of much of the animosity towards Christians is the suggestion otherwise. But for us to abandon that idea to make others feel better would be, dishonest.

"Good enough"... for what, or whom? That's the question that most Christians answer in this annoying fashion. Nothing is good enough for God!
It's again, as I and many atheists see it, inventing an illness to be able to sell the cure.

The problem is the data. Christians in general do not appear to be "nicer" or "better" than anyone else. There are horrible Christians. There are nice Christians. There are horrible Muslim, Hindu or Buddhists. There are also horrible Jain. And there are nice variants of the same groups.
It almost seems as if these are just nice or horrible humans, who are nice and horrible "by their own strength"... but many of the nice ones attribute that to their respective deity/worldview.
Atheists don't have that benefit. We are just nice or horrible on our own, and we have no one else to blame - or laude - for it.

Yes, in some situations, faith can help you to deal with situations that would be difficult to handle "by your own strength".
But again, it appears to be that it is the faith that helps... and not the subject of that faith. And it works even for atheists, who usually have a "faith", regardless of how much some Christians want to deny that, or turn "Atheism" into a religion.

However there are moments and events in life that seem to have a greater tendency to cause those who are "good" in their own power to reconsider those beliefs and begin to consider a higher source. I've seen it many times.

Yes, and there are also many examples of such people in such sitiations who do not... and still cope. Or people who have a strong faith, get into such situations... and falter.
Humans. No supernatural source needed.

So you do what you think you need to do, I'm not trying to change your mind. I just hope that when the most difficult moments in life arise that you (or anyone) are not completely closed to the idea.

You mean, like the time when all of my family died within a week, turning all of my previous life upside down?
See, I have already been through that, have dealt with it... and I am still an atheist. I didn't even start having to "reconsider" my worldview... it kept me right through it.

Now this seems borderline dishonest and unkind. You've never experienced it, yet can speak for and know how God has worked in the lives of billions of people better than them? You know what they need and when they need it and when they don't? This site and Christianity in general is full of people professing how God saved them in various and amazing ways. Sounds like you might believe in God after all, as long as that God is you.

It's difficult to analyse the potential positive examples.
Let's say that I have found - and consider that these are years of experience - that Christians, especially newly converted Christians, are not always completely honest about their previous positions. You could call it the "Saulus/Paulus" phenomenon... trying to make your new worldview shine more brightly by darkening your past. Many even claim to have been "militant atheists". And I wont even bother to bring the existing examples of prior High Priests of Satan or Witch Coven Queens.
So it tends to be that people who "profess how God saved them" usually believe in God, and thus attribute their "salvation" to this source.

Now, this might sound "unkind" - but like you, not mentioning that would be dishonest for me.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of deities, and I do not believe that the stories of Christianity are real. You could call me "hard hearted"... but it's just that my atheism is very much grounded in my life.
There are others like me, and you will be hard pressed to find any of those who get "saved". Some of these were raised as faithful Christians - sometimes fervently believing - and at some point found that it just didn't add up. They have too many questions that go unanswered to get "saved" again by niceness.
I have never been a Christian. My questions may be similar or of a different kind. But they remain unanswered by religion. So again, telling someone like me to do things "by Christ" is... just meaningless for us.

It would need something else, something more to convince me... and I really do not think I ask too much. After all, Christianity promises answers, and provides tons of "evidence" with their stories.

As I said, I am a historian by education. I know about stories. They tend to happen to other people.

 

[topher694]

"Good enough"... for what, or whom? That's the question that most Christians answer in this annoying fashion. Nothing is good enough for God!
It's again, as I and many atheists see it, inventing an illness to be able to sell the cure.

The problem is the data. Christians in general do not appear to be "nicer" or "better" than anyone else. There are horrible Christians. There are nice Christians. There are horrible Muslim, Hindu or Buddhists. There are also horrible Jain. And there are nice variants of the same groups.
It almost seems as if these are just nice or horrible humans, who are nice and horrible "by their own strength"... but many of the nice ones attribute that to their respective deity/worldview.
Atheists don't have that benefit. We are just nice or horrible on our own, and we have no one else to blame - or laude - for it.

Yes, in some situations, faith can help you to deal with situations that would be difficult to handle "by your own strength".
But again, it appears to be that it is the faith that helps... and not the subject of that faith. And it works even for atheists, who usually have a "faith", regardless of how much some Christians want to deny that, or turn "Atheism" into a religion.


Yes, and there are also many examples of such people in such sitiations who do not... and still cope. Or people who have a strong faith, get into such situations... and falter.
Humans. No supernatural source needed.


You mean, like the time when all of my family died within a week, turning all of my previous life upside down?
See, I have already been through that, have dealt with it... and I am still an atheist. I didn't even start having to "reconsider" my worldview... it kept me right through it.


It's difficult to analyse the potential positive examples.
Let's say that I have found - and consider that these are years of experience - that Christians, especially newly converted Christians, are not always completely honest about their previous positions. You could call it the "Saulus/Paulus" phenomenon... trying to make your new worldview shine more brightly by darkening your past. Many even claim to have been "militant atheists". And I wont even bother to bring the existing examples of prior High Priests of Satan or Witch Coven Queens.
So it tends to be that people who "profess how God saved them" usually believe in God, and thus attribute their "salvation" to this source.

Now, this might sound "unkind" - but like you, not mentioning that would be dishonest for me.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of deities, and I do not believe that the stories of Christianity are real. You could call me "hard hearted"... but it's just that my atheism is very much grounded in my life.
There are others like me, and you will be hard pressed to find any of those who get "saved". Some of these were raised as faithful Christians - sometimes fervently believing - and at some point found that it just didn't add up. They have too many questions that go unanswered to get "saved" again by niceness.
I have never been a Christian. My questions may be similar or of a different kind. But they remain unanswered by religion. So again, telling someone like me to do things "by Christ" is... just meaningless for us.

It would need something else, something more to convince me... and I really do not think I ask too much. After all, Christianity promises answers, and provides tons of "evidence" with their stories.

As I said, I am a historian by education. I know about stories. They tend to happen to other people.

Youre reading a lot more into what I said than is there, and with quite a cynical slant. For example, my "good enough" comment was simply an extension of your "good person" comment, nothing more. Certainly not as broad and accusational as you presented it.

You seem to keep going back to your default assumptions on Christian arguments and projecting them on me without actually listening to what I have to say. Therefore, I see little point in continuing.

 

[muichimotsu]

Youre reading a lot more into what I said than is there, and with quite a cynical slant. For example, my "good enough" comment was simply an extension of your "good person" comment, nothing more. Certainly not as broad and accusational as you presented it.

You seem to keep going back to your default assumptions on Christian arguments and projecting them on me without actually listening to what I have to say. Therefore, I see little point in continuing.

If your tactic is trying to seem like you're not like those other Christians, sounds to me like you're engaging in no true Scotsman to say your perspective on Christianity could change their mind. But how is that any different than the initial problem of inventing an illness to present the cure, you've just posited a different approach

But if you're just going to be defensive and keep making Freodin to be attacking you rather than engaging in a way you think is cynical, you're insinuating your presumptions onto him as much as you claim they're doing to you

 

[Freodin]

Youre reading a lot more into what I said than is there, and with quite a cynical slant. For example, my "good enough" comment was simply an extension of your "good person" comment, nothing more. Certainly not as broad and accusational as you presented it.

You seem to keep going back to your default assumptions on Christian arguments and projecting them on me without actually listening to what I have to say. Therefore, I see little point in continuing.

I apologize if I have offended you. It can get difficult to sort out the various Christian arguments... there seem to be as many different (and contradicting) ones as there are Christians.

So, how did you mean it? For what or whom should I be "good enough"?

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

No problem. I enjoyed the conversation. Perhaps we can continue this exchange at some other point.

Whatever you do: have a nice Christmas.

You too! Even if we don't share the same beliefs, may God Bless you & your family, and Merry Christmas

(I also really enjoyed conversing with you as well. I would be down to continue another time, for sure.)

 

[topher694]

I apologize if I have offended you. It can get difficult to sort out the various Christian arguments... there seem to be as many different (and contradicting) ones as there are Christians.

So, how did you mean it? For what or whom should I be "good enough"?

Not offended at all. I just don't want to spend time going back and forth if is not going to be productive. And defending things I didn't say seems unproductive.

I was simply juxtaposing the two positions. You feel like you're a good person (good enough) by your own will to be so. Ok, that's fine. Some others often don't see it that way, they want to be better, but struggle to do so. So in a Christian context they seek God to help them do so (oversimplification, but you get the point). My job is to guide them in that process. My main issue is how Skidder approaches that, not that people believe what you do.

Your approach understandably isn't going to produce much interest in Christianity. But that doesn't mean that people who are pursing Christ don't sincerely want to be better people. And yeah, some are bad examples of it, but there will always be those and the reasons for that are another topic entirely.

 

[Freodin]

So in a Christian context they seek God to help them do so (oversimplification, but you get the point).

No, sorry, that is exactly the point I do not get. Or that I contest, if what I think you mean with that is correct.
People who are not satisfied with themselves seek to get better. What they chose in order to do that can differ widely.
Some may "seek God" to help them. But if they do that, they already believe that there is "God" or a "Higher Power" to help them.

So I guess you can understand why that would be a little difficult - and potentially dishonest - for atheists.