Soft on Sin

[clirus]

Soft on Sin

If you were to ask most people if they were soft on sin, they would say they have high moral standards that would be consistent with the Bible. That would be the 170 million people that can afford health insurance.

If you were to ask most people if they were soft on sin relative to other people, they would say they do not want to be judgmental, do not what to get involved, etc.

This concept was expressed by John Edwards as, "I would not do that, but I would not mind someone else doing it."

The concept is that sin only affects the person that is doing the sin, but that is incorrect.

The Catholic Church took a soft on sin approach to homosexuals as priests, and now the church is a disgrace to God and all Christians.

Many Christians wonder why there children leave the Church but will not admit their soft on sin attitude allows Atheists to lure their children into sin, from which the children never return.

Sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty. When the poverty is obvious, there is a great cry for health care/welfare to mitigate the poverty that was produced by a soft on sin attitude. That is why America has 30 million people that cannot afford health insurance.

Sin destroys an individual and a nation. AIDS is killing two million people per year and the cost of preventing death due to AIDS is staggering. STDs are a major problem in America and the cost of curing is staggering. 40% of the births in America are illegitimate and the cost of health care/welfare for the children is staggering. Nations that try to make the soft on sin concept work, by implementing Socialism, end up in a financial mess, because the costs of the disease, death, destruction and poverty produced by sin are impossible to sustain.

Socialism is the Atheists/Humanists attempt to make Atheism workable.

Sin cannot be controlled in a nation if the State takes a soft on sin approach and the Church tries to maintain the moral standards of the Bible.

The Church should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God, and the State should rebuke evil/sin for health, safety and economic reasons.

This is a political subject because Republicans have yet to prove to me that they totally support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

One has to ask the question, "Will there be any democrats in Heaven?"

I believe a person that is not soft on sin for themselves and yet soft on sin for other people is a hypocrite.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you were to ask most people if they were soft on sin, they would say they have high moral standards that would be consistent with the Bible. That would be the 170 million people that can afford health insurance.

You are implying that people whose morals are consistent with the Bible can afford health insurance. What's more, you are implying that 170 million people (the number that can afford health insurance) have morals consistent with the Bible! Prove it - show us some figures that indicate that 170 million people who can afford health insurance have Bible-consistent moralities. Otherwise, this is a ridiculous claim purely because of its broad assumptions.

Sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty. When the poverty is obvious, there is a great cry for health care/welfare to mitigate the poverty that was produced by a soft on sin attitude. That is why America has 30 million people that cannot afford health insurance.

Wow. So 170 million people who can afford health insurance have values consistent with the Bible, but 30 million people who cannot afford health insurance cannot afford it due to sin? Your speculations would be amusing Clirus if they were not so patently absurd.

Besides that, you are contradicting yourself again!

You said:

(A) The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin​

Followed closely by:

(B) I believe the disease, death, destruction and poverty is the result of the sin and not because someone refuses to help.​

And more recently:

Atheists and the Atheistic Lifestyle produce disease, death, destruction and poverty.​

Sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty.​

If A, then not B. You claimed that "poverty was not a proof of sin" while many of your other claims assume that poverty is a proof of sin. You, sir or madam, are contradicting yourself! For example, in this thread, you unjustifiably interpreted lack of healthcare coverage to be indicative of sinfulness, and inferred that the 30 million uninsured Americans were sinful. You therefore assumed that their lack, their poverty, was proof of sin! Conversely, you inferred that the 170 million Americans with coverage were Bible-abiding persons. You therefore assumed that their possessions (health insurance) were indicative of their fidelity to Scripture! In this way you contradict your own claim that "poverty [is] not proof of sin" by conjecturing that a people's poverty (in this case, lack of healthcare coverage) is indicative of their sin! It's like saying, 'Being poor isn't proof that you're a criminal, but because you're poor I'm going to assume that you are a criminal.'

So how do you account for this self-contradiction?

Sin cannot be controlled in a nation if the State takes a soft on sin approach and the Church tries to maintain the moral standards of the Bible.

The State cannot take any stance on sin (soft or hard approach) without expressly violating the Separation of Church and State.

The Church should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God, and the State should rebuke evil/sin for health, safety and economic reasons.

But the State has no compelling reason (for neither safety or economics) to rebuke/eliminate some things that the Church calls sin.

I believe a person that is not soft on sin for themselves and yet soft on sin for other people is a hypocrite.

And I believe that a person who claims that "that poverty [is] not proof of sin" and that "poverty is the result of sin" is contradicting themselves.

 

[Chajara]

Soft on Sin

If you were to ask most people if they were soft on sin, they would say they have high moral standards that would be consistent with the Bible. That would be the 170 million people that can afford health insurance.

My fiancee and I aren't going to be officially married until August 21st and we're boinking like two little rabbits. We also both support gay marriage and while neither of us likes abortion we want it to remain legal while the problem of unwanted pregnancy is worked on. Oh, and we both support UHC.

Despite this, we both can afford health insurance, rent, bills, and groceries (including pastured meat and certain organics) and we've got about $10,000 in savings. Tell me how this happened.

 

[SithDoughnut]

My fiancee and I aren't going to be officially married until August 21st and we're boinking like two little rabbits. We also both support gay marriage and while neither of us likes abortion we want it to remain legal while the problem of unwanted pregnancy is worked on. Oh, and we both support UHC.

Despite this, we both can afford health insurance, rent, bills, and groceries (including pastured meat and certain organics) and we've got about $10,000 in savings. Tell me how this happened.

Easy. You stole it.

Also, 'boinking' is now my new favourite word.

 

[Chajara]

Easy. You stole it.

Also, 'boinking' is now my new favourite word.

Welp, you got me. Also, you're welcome.

 

[Gishin]

Oh look this thread again.

 

[clirus]

Art Vandelay quote

The State cannot take any stance on sin (soft or hard approach) without expressly violating the Separation of Church and State.

Response

If the State cannot take any stance on sin then murder, rape, incest, pornography, abortion and homosexuality must be legal.

Interesting, we are half way to anarchy.

If the State cannot take any stance on sin then there is no need for the police or a judicial system.

Poverty is not proof of sin, but poverty is proof of a problem that is most likely produced by sin. When a person has a problem, they should examine themselves and deal with the problem.

The love of sin confuses the thinking of many. The discussion in Romans about homosexuality tells a lot about the person that is a homosexual and about those that love sin.

Romans 1:26-32, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the State cannot take any stance on sin then murder, rape, incest, pornography, abortion and homosexuality must be legal.

Read on and you'll see that I clearly say that "the State has no compelling reason (either safety or economical) to rebuke/eliminate some things that the Church calls sin." Of course the State has a compelling reason to rebuke murder, rape and incest. But it has no such reason, neither safety nor economical, to rebuke/eliminate homosexuality or pornography. The reasons for rebuking these last two are religious, not political (safety or economic), and so the State has no reason to do so.

Poverty is not proof of sin, but poverty is proof of a problem that is most likely produced by sin. When a person has a problem, they should examine themselves and deal with the problem.

But that's entirely contradictory of you. You say "poverty is not proof of sin", but when presented with data showing that 30 million Americans lack health coverage you assumed sinfulness! And you assumed that Americans' with this possession were all Bible-abiding Christians, even though you earlier claimed that wealth was not proof of righteousness. I'm calling this what it is: hypocrisy. You are essentially saying 'Lacking health coverage isn't proof of sin, but because you lack health coverage I'm still going to assume that it is because of sinfulness.' Hypocritical is precisely what this is. And it's not the first time either. You say poverty is not proof of sin but whenever we discuss poor people you treat them like sinners and assume a priori that sin is the cause of their misery. You say one thing Clirus but your disposition towards poor people says something entirely contrary. Hypocrisy.

I don't see why anyone should take what you say about poor people seriously when you treat poor people with such contempt and assume first, and without investigation, that they caused their own misery. You blame poverty on its victims and then have the nerve to say 'it's not proof of sin', all the while you speak as though it were. It doesn't take any amount of genius to discredit this detestable line of thought. Your own self-contradiction means that you discredit yourself.

 

[jgarden]

Soft on Sin

..... Sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty. When the poverty is obvious, there is a great cry for health care/welfare to mitigate the poverty that was produced by a soft on sin attitude. That is why America has 30 million people that cannot afford health insurance.

Sin destroys an individual and a nation. AIDS is killing two million people per year and the cost of preventing death due to AIDS is staggering. STDs are a major problem in America and the cost of curing is staggering. 40% of the births in America are illegitimate and the cost of health care/welfare for the children is staggering. Nations that try to make the soft on sin concept work, by implementing Socialism, end up in a financial mess, because the costs of the disease, death, destruction and poverty produced by sin are impossible to sustain.

Socialism is the Atheists/Humanists attempt to make Atheism workable .....

This is a political subject because Republicans have yet to prove to me that they totally support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

One has to ask the question, "Will there be any democrats in Heaven?"

I believe a person that is not soft on sin for themselves and yet soft on sin for other people is a hypocrite.

**********************************************************

Country Comparisons :: Life expectancy at birth - % of population that considers themselves Agnostic/Atheist

..... Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.

Rank country (years) Date of Information
*********************************

1 Macau 84.36 2009 est.

2 Andorra 82.51 2009 est.

3 Japan 82.12 2009 est. - (5 Japan 64-65% atheistic/agnostic)

4 Singapore 81.98 2009 est. - (38 Singapore 13% atheistic/agnostic)

5 Hong Kong 81.86 2009 est.

6 Australia 81.63 2009 est. - (25 Australia 24-25% atheistic/agnostic)

7 Canada 81.23 2009 est. - (20 Canada 19-30% atheistic/agnostic)

8 France 80.98 2009 est. - (8 France 43-54% atheistic/agnostic)

9 Sweden 80.86 2009 est. - (1 Sweden 46-85% atheistic/agnostic)

10 Switzerland 80.85 2009 est. - (23 Switzerland 17-27% atheistic/agnostic)

11 San Marino 80.81 2009 est.

12 Israel 80.73 2009 est. - (19 Israel 15-37% atheistic/agnostic)

13 Iceland 80.67 2009 est. - (28 Iceland 16-23% atheistic/agnostic)

14 Anguilla 80.65 2009 est.

15 Cayman Islands 80.44 2009 est.

16 Bermuda 80.43 2009 est.

17 New Zealand 80.36 2009 est. - (29 New Zealand 20-22% atheistic/agnostic)

18 Italy 80.20 2009 est. - (34 Italy 6-15% atheistic/agnostic)

19 Monaco 80.09 2009 est.

20 Liechtenstein 80.06 2009 est.

21 Spain 80.05 2009 est. - (27 Spain 15-24% atheistic/agnostic)

22 Guernsey 80.00 2009 est.

23 Norway 79.95 2009 est. - (4 Norway 31-72% atheistic/agnostic)

24 Jordan 79.85 2009 est.

25 Jersey 79.75 2009 est.

26 Greece 79.66 2009 est. - (32 Greece 16% atheistic/agnostic)

27 Austria 79.50 2009 est. - (24 Austria 18-26% atheistic/agnostic)

28 Faroe Islands 79.44 2009 est.

29 Malta 79.44 2009 est.

30 Netherlands 79.40 2009 est. - (14 Netherlands 39-44% atheistic/agnostic)

31 Luxembourg 79.33 2009 est.

32 Germany 79.26 2009 est. - (11 Germany 41-49% atheistic/agnostic)

33 Belgium 79.22 2009 est. - (16 Belgium 42-43% atheistic/agnostic)

34 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 79.08 2009 est.

35 Virgin Islands 79.05 2009 est.

36 United Kingdom 79.01 2009 est. - (15 Britain 39-44% atheistic/agnostic)

37 Finland 78.97 2009 est. - (7 Finland 28-60% atheistic/agnostic)

38 Isle of Man 78.82 2009 est.

39 Gibraltar 78.79 2009 est.

40 Korea, South 78.72 2009 est. - (9 South Korea 30%-52% atheistic/agnostic)

41 European Union 78.67 2009 est.

42 Puerto Rico 78.52 2009 est.

43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.50 2009 est.

44 Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha 78.44 2009 est.

45 Denmark 78.30 2009 est. - (3 Denmark 43-80% atheistic/agnostic)

46 Ireland 78.24 2009 est.

47 Portugal 78.21 2009 est.

48 Wallis and Futuna 78.20 2009 est.

49 United States 78.11 2009 est. - (44 United States 3-9% atheistic/agnostic)

50 Albania 77.96 2009 est. - (45 Albania 8% atheistic/agnostic)

51 Taiwan 77.96 2009 est. - (26 Taiwan 24% atheistic/agnostic)

52 Kuwait 77.71 2009 est.

53 Costa Rica 77.58 2009 est.

54 Cyprus 77.49 2009 est.

55 Cuba 77.45 2009 est. - (49 Cuba 7% atheistic/agnostic)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Worldwide Atheism Trend and Pattern – A Summary « Evolution Space

Since "clirus" continues to flood General Political Discussion with threads that are nothing but variations on the same theme (Sin/atheism leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty), I see no reason not to reply in kind.

The CIA Factbook, a branch of the US government, states that "Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country."

"Clirus" has gone to great lengths to point out that "atheists, liberals and democrats" promote an "Atheistic Lifestyle" characterized by "evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery, homosexuality," disease and poverty.

That being the case, one would assume that nations with the lowest % of citizens who consider themselves "atheists/agnostics" would have the highest average life expectancy (a measure of overall quality of life).

Ironically, in modern nations the reverse is true, with the data totally refuting the assumption that atheists/agnostics are synominous with death and disease.

Not only does the US currently rank only 49th in terms of average life expectancy, but there are 22 nations that not only rank higher than America in lifespans but also have substantially higher % of the population that consider themselves "atheistic/agnostic."

"Clirus" always has the opportunity to provide her own data to challenge these observations - but in the past she has never let a command of the facts interfere with promoting her own "agenda!"

 

[variant]

I don't even believe in sin, yet here I am completely capable of affording health insurance and living a healthy lifestyle.

I guess I'm not part of the 170 million or the 30 million; I must not be an American at all.

Perhaps I am not doing my atheistic best to have as much unprotected homosexual intercourse as possible as described in the Atheist handbook.

Or, maybe, just maybe, this is the worst argument I've ever seen and I shouldn’t have bothered to reply to it.

 

[clirus]

**********************************************************

Since "clirus" continues to flood General Political Discussion with threads that are nothing but variations on the same theme (Sin/atheism leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty), I see no reason not to reply in kind.

The CIA Factbook, a branch of the US government, states that "Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country."

"Clirus" has gone to great lengths to point out that "atheists, liberals and democrats" promote an "Atheistic Lifestyle" characterized by "evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery, homosexuality," disease and poverty.

That being the case, one would assume that nations with the lowest % of citizens who consider themselves "atheists/agnostics" would have the highest average life expectancy (a measure of overall quality of life).

Ironically, in modern nations the reverse is true, with the data totally refuting the assumption that atheists/agnostics are synominous with death and disease.

Not only does the US currently rank only 49th in terms of average life expectancy, but there are 22 nations that not only rank higher than America in lifespans but also have substantially higher % of the population that consider themselves "atheistic/agnostic."

"Clirus" always has the opportunity to provide her own data to challenge these observations - but in the past she has never let a command of the facts interfere with promoting her own "agenda!"

jgarden makes a lot of points in support of Atheism, but I will attempt to present a fundamentalist Christian position.

I believe the Bible does support that "Sin/atheism leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty". This is clearly stated in the verse, Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Every aspect of the Bible is a discussion that good is rewarded by God and evil is punished/destroyed by God. Too many people take God's longsuffering as God's acceptance.

jgarden use of the CIA Factbook as physical evidence that the Atheistic Lifestyle produces better results than the Christian Lifestyle, fails to take into account the very Racist Immigration policies of most of the countries that have a better life expectancy ranking than America. These Racist Immigration policies tend to keep out people that would lower the life expectancy and health care ranking of any nation.

All though the CIA Factbook can be used as physical evidence that Atheism is good, the physical evidence of AIDS, STDs and illegitimate children is proof that the wages of sin is death, disease, destruction and poverty.

I believe both the Bible and physical reality show the Atheistic Lifestyle and the Socialism that is needed to make the Atheistic Lifestyle tolerable, are not Biblical.

I see no need to go out and punish Atheists, except when they violate Civil Law, but then I see no need to reward Atheists through Socialism.

If Socialism really changed Atheists, then it would be acceptable, but I see Socialism as doing nothing more than sustaining Atheists in their sinful condition.

Socialism is giving a man a fish, Christianity is teaching a man how to fish.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe the Bible does support that "Sin/atheism leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty". This is clearly stated in the verse, Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

But you also believe, apparently, that 'poverty is not proof of sin', according to the Book of Job. As a consequence, you are contradicting yourself and because of that there is no reason for us to take what you say about poor people seriously. You discredit yourself by self-contradiction.

jgarden use of the CIA Factbook as physical evidence that the Atheistic Lifestyle produces better results than the Christian Lifestyle, fails to take into account the very Racist Immigration policies of most of the countries that have a better life expectancy ranking than America. These Racist Immigration policies tend to keep out people that would lower the life expectancy and health care ranking of any nation.

You have yet to present a single proof for this claim. Do you know about this little thing called 'evidence'? It's kinda important, and because you lack it, people don't take what you say seriously.

All though the CIA Factbook can be used as physical evidence that Atheism is good, the physical evidence of AIDS, STDs and illegitimate children is proof that the wages of sin is death, disease, destruction and poverty.

Atheism is a belief system. No part of the belief system mandates that people must do activities that will result in AIDS, STDS or illegitimate children. You are misrepresenting Atheism.

I believe both the Bible and physical reality show the Atheistic Lifestyle and the Socialism that is needed to make the Atheistic Lifestyle tolerable, are not Biblical.

You might as well say that you believe in unicorns. It would be just as acceptable as the self-contradiction of 'poverty is not proof of sin' followed by assuming that people's poverty is an indication of their sinfulness.

 

[DuneSoldier]

jgarden makes a lot of points in support of Atheism, but I will attempt to present a fundamentalist Christian position.

No... No he doesn't. He's simply pointing out that your argument is flawed. The religious belief systems of the majority doesn't appear to have an affect on the life expectancy of the people living in those countries.

What he is refuting however is that just because someone is an atheist that they necessarily live in poverty or have poor health. I actually find the opposite to be true, most people who are poor or unhealthy seem to have greater faith in God than those who are comfortable on this Earth.

 

[clirus]

No... No he doesn't. He's simply pointing out that your argument is flawed. The religious belief systems of the majority doesn't appear to have an affect on the life expectancy of the people living in those countries.

What he is refuting however is that just because someone is an atheist that they necessarily live in poverty or have poor health. I actually find the opposite to be true, most people who are poor or unhealthy seem to have greater faith in God than those who are comfortable on this Earth.

I believe most people who are poor or unhealthy are hoping God or gods (including government) will solve their problems, but are unwilling to give up the wine, women and song (failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible), that is producing the poverty and unhealthy situation.

These people would worship a loving God, but reject a righteous God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe most people who are poor or unhealthy are hoping God or gods (including government) will solve their problems, but are unwilling to give up the wine, women and song (failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible), that is producing the poverty and unhealthy situation.

But Clirus, remember that "poverty is not proof of sin." So you have no reason to assume that most poor people are poor due to sin (excessive wine, women and song). Oh wait... hypocrisy.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Is it me, or does 'Soft on Sin' sound like it would make a good advertising jingle?

 

[QuakerPete]

Is it me, or does 'Soft on Sin' sound like it would make a good advertising jingle?

You mean - Soft on Sin, Soft on the Causes of Sin?

 

[SithDoughnut]

You mean - Soft on Sin, Soft on the Causes of Sin?

Possibly. I prefer just the three words but you could work with both.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's just skip to the end -- clirus, who do you want executed this time?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Let's just skip to the end -- clirus, who do you want executed this time?

This guy, apparently.

List of Doctor Who henchmen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seeing as he is a cyborg (and was deactivated if my memory of the episode in question is correct) I don't know why he'd need executing, but there you go...