Speaking Out Against Sin

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course us sinners aren't going to change our behavior just because a Christian told us they believe it's wrong. The question is why do you tell us you believe it's wrong despite this?

Tell me something, if you knew without a doubt that the Christian God was real and that there were people who didn't believe He was and you were told they would suffer if they remained the same what would you do? Don't you think it would be heartless and uncaring to know this without at least trying to speak to others about it?

 

[devolved]

Do you think that opening with "Hey, you know that thing you love to do? It's immoral." is an effective method of opening people up to the Bible? Feeling like that's the moral thing to do seems counterproductive to me if getting people interested in the Bible is a goal at all.

The typical perspective from "Romans road to salvation" camp is that in order for people to see how great God is they have to first acknowledge how terrible they are. The idea is that you can't see God unless you see God as a necessary means to fixing your human condition, and if you don't see your condition in need of fixing... then you can't see God.

So, given that's the approach, this kind of evangelism isn't really looking for skeptics or even open to all followers. It's looking for people in some form of existential or emotional bind who are looking for some answers to problems they can't solve on their own. And it's certainly not something that speaks to the analytical part of your brain.

I dislike it, because it's very similar to the ploy below.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The typical perspective from "Romans road to salvation" camp is that in order for people to see how great God is they have to first acknowledge how terrible they are. The idea is that you can't see God unless you see God as a necessary means to fixing your human condition, and if you don't see your condition in need of fixing... then you can't see God.

So, given that's the approach, this kind of evangelism isn't really looking for skeptics or even open to all followers. It's looking for people in some form of existential or emotional bind who are looking for some answers to problems they can't solve on their own. And it's certainly not something that speaks to the analytical part of your brain.

I dislike it, because it's very similar to the ploy below.

Oh! You just convinced me that I need to change my avatar again so as not to give the wrong impression about which camp I belong in................................. [Call it "poetic Justice"]

 

[Moral Orel]

Tell me something, if you knew without a doubt that the Christian God was real and that there were people who didn't believe He was and you were told they would suffer if they remained the same what would you do? Don't you think it would be heartless and uncaring to know this without at least trying to speak to others about it?

Absolutely! I'm not criticizing your need to talk to people about God. I'm questioning what seems like a bizarre and ineffective strategy. It isn't the message that's in question, it's the presentation.

 

[Moral Orel]

Quite a bit, really, depending upon which view of Ethics you take, Nick! And I've chosen to take--more or less--"the" Christian view! Of course, I don't expect the world to applaud that I've done so.....................why? Because the Bible tells me so.

This brings us back to what I said before about conflating immorality with sin. Without defending any one other view of ethics, and without even defending that they're a more likely way at arriving at the truth of things, they all have reason in common. A discussion can be had between them because of that common ground. Taking things on faith lacks that common ground of reason. It's a bit like trying to have a conversation between an English speaker and a German speaker. Who knows who's right if they don't have the medium necessary to have the conversation in the first place? Again, this isn't to say my view on morality is right and your view on morality is wrong. It's just to say that we can't have a chat about it. You make your assertion, and then that's it.

Ice-breakers? From what I can tell, a large chunk of the people interacting here are already aware of my existence and of my eccentric Christian views on things, so I think we're well past the insinuation that any one particular new thread I might make will truly count as an "ice-breaker."

Meh, "ice-breaker" to the trickle of new folks that show up now and then and to those folks you haven't conversed with, and "conversation starter" to those folks whom you've met. I don't think your views are all that eccentric either.

I don't know. Do you think telling people to "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near!" as one of the first things to drop from a person's lips is apropos?

It depends.

It simply means to no longer allow the World, in its glory and in all of its various political and social Agendas, to inculcate me with various values of a particular non-biblical nature and nuance or to gets its little claws into my heart and mind. But don't worry! When I say that I must "hold the line," I'm not making a political statement. No, I leave that kind of thing to some of the Red-Neck, Gun-toting Republicans or to the Dire-Hard, Communistically inclined Leftists who meander in and out of the Democratic party. No, I'm just passively (but still passionately) Purple in my politics. Besides, remember what Jesus told Pontius Pilate?

Do you feel like telling others what you believe to be immoral about their behavior helps you focus on what your values are and should be? If it does help in that regard, it would have a point, even if it's apparently ineffective in any other regard.

Have you ever heard of the term, "the Mark of the Beast"? I know, I know. I should be mindful that there's a learning curve involved here since so many people [especially those living in the West] have just 'never' heard of the term.

I was thinking of something in the present. Unless your view of eschatology is that we're already in the end times and the Mark is some metaphor for something else that's going on.

 

[Moral Orel]

The typical perspective from "Romans road to salvation" camp is that in order for people to see how great God is they have to first acknowledge how terrible they are. The idea is that you can't see God unless you see God as a necessary means to fixing your human condition, and if you don't see your condition in need of fixing... then you can't see God.

So, given that's the approach, this kind of evangelism isn't really looking for skeptics or even open to all followers. It's looking for people in some form of existential or emotional bind who are looking for some answers to problems they can't solve on their own. And it's certainly not something that speaks to the analytical part of your brain.

I wasn't going to make the comparison to the techniques we see used by modern day cults, but there you go...

 

[Oncedeceived]

Absolutely! I'm not criticizing your need to talk to people about God. I'm questioning what seems like a bizarre and ineffective strategy. It isn't the message that's in question, it's the presentation.

I'm not sure how it was presented. Can you explain what was done?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not sure how it was presented. Can you explain what was done?

Telling unbelievers that they are sinning. Until you've convinced them that Christianity is true, why tell them that you believe they're sinning?

 

[devolved]

This brings us back to what I said before about conflating immorality with sin. Without defending any one other view of ethics, and without even defending that they're a more likely way at arriving at the truth of things, they all have reason in common.

Telling unbelievers that they are sinning. Until you've convinced them that Christianity is true, why tell them that you believe they're sinning?

Sure, if the goal is to convince you, but I don't think that's the goal. The goal is for you to be aware of a certain standards of virtue that they see you not living up to, which may or may not nudge you in a direction of certain behavioral preference.

Again, let's say that someone named their dog "N***r" out of disagreement that there's anything wrong with that concept, and they would walk around in a crowded city calling their dog to comply with their commands using that word (I know, it's beginning to sound like a Chapelle skit).

Would you really need to convince them that such act is racist or at least received as racist before you you merely point out that it is? I understand that it may be ineffective, but collective ethics IS in fact a network of these "virtue signals" that express distaste with certain behavior that holds cultures together.

From certain Christian POV pointing to certain concept of sinful behavior is not any different than our present cultural hunt for misogyny, homophobia and racism. Much of it (if not most) is emotionally-driven, and not based on reason.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Telling unbelievers that they are sinning. Until you've convinced them that Christianity is true, why tell them that you believe they're sinning?

That is what Christianity is all about. Forgiveness for your sins?

 

[zippy2006]

Why do so many Christians tell other people outside of the Christian faith that they're sinning?

Because sin is a universal and public concept, grounded in reason. If someone isn't a Christian and doesn't really understand what sin means I would tell them they are doing something wrong, or that they are acting immorally.

As devolved pointed out, our culture is currently strongly focused on the evil of misogyny. Is it okay for secularists to accuse people of misogyny?

But it must be observed that the nature of a thing is chiefly the form from which that thing derives its species. Now man derives his species from his rational soul: and consequently whatever is contrary to the order of reason is, properly speaking, contrary to the nature of man, as man; while whatever is in accord with reason, is in accord with the nature of man, as man. Now "man's good is to be in accord with reason, and his evil is to be against reason," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore human virtue, which makes a man good, and his work good, is in accord with man's nature, for as much as it accords with his reason: while vice is contrary to man's nature, in so far as it is contrary to the order of reason (ST I IIae, Q71, A2).

Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason, and this shows it to have the character of sin, because according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 4), "the soul's evil is to be opposed to reason." Therefore it is evident that pride is a sin (ST II IIae, Q162, A1).

Reason has the direction of those things for which man has a natural appetite; so that if the appetite wander from the rule of reason, whether by excess or by default, it will be sinful, as is the case with the appetite for food which man desires naturally (ST II IIae, Q162, A1, ad2).

The theologian considers sin chiefly as an offense against God; and the moral philosopher, as something contrary to reason. Hence Augustine defines sin with reference to its being "contrary to the eternal law," more fittingly than with reference to its being contrary to reason; the more so, as the eternal law directs us in many things that surpass human reason, e.g. in matters of faith (ST I Iae, Q71, A6, ad5).​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This brings us back to what I said before about conflating immorality with sin. Without defending any one other view of ethics, and without even defending that they're a more likely way at arriving at the truth of things, they all have reason in common.

While it is true that various ethical frameworks all have "reason" in common, I don't think there's much of a danger in conflating immorality with the biblical notion of sin, the later is more of an encompassing term than the former, really. Moreover, citing reason as a commonality between attempts at human ethics and morality is also fraught with the potential for falling into the genetic fallacy. To add to this, I might take a cue from Martin Luther in saying that we have to be careful with reason. Actually, this would be me saying that we have to be basically be careful with how we think we're subscribing to the essence of reason in our ethical thinking; Luther on the other hand thought “reason is the devil’s harlot,” or that it could at least be prone to be hired out as such if not guarded for.

A discussion can be had between them because of that common ground. Taking things on faith lacks that common ground of reason. It's a bit like trying to have a conversation between an English speaker and a German speaker. Who knows who's right if they don't have the medium necessary to have the conversation in the first place? Again, this isn't to say my view on morality is right and your view on morality is wrong. It's just to say that we can't have a chat about it. You make your assertion, and then that's it.

...no, I think we can have a chat about it, especially if we share a common language, a common culture (as in both of us being in the U.S.), some basic familiarity with life, politics, law, social structures, and even at least minimal familiarity with Christianity. So, no, I think we can have a chat, especially since both of us are otherwise educated individuals.

Meh, "ice-breaker" to the trickle of new folks that show up now and then and to those folks you haven't conversed with, and "conversation starter" to those folks whom you've met. I don't think your views are all that eccentric either.

The new folks are definitely more of a trickle in comparison to the alumni of CF ...

It depends.

So, you 'do' think some contexts should be 'read' by me in certain situations? As in, I should be aware and mindful of who my audience(s) is? Sure, I can agree with you that the Christian ideal would have me be mindful to watch my words and to say that which is prudent when interacting with people of various types and dispositions. At the same time, I also realize because of the Jewish idioms that lie behind even a "Gentile" framework of Christian ethics and ideology (see Gallaty, 2017), something is bound to be said to non-Christians, however nicely it may be delivered rhetorically, that will deeply chaff the sensibilities of the more common non-Christian, something like where Jesus says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword...!", or "...unless you hate your father, and mother, and family....etc., etc.!"

Ref
Gallaty, Robby. (2017). The Forgotten Jesus: How Western Christians should follow an eastern rabbi. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Do you feel like telling others what you believe to be immoral about their behavior helps you focus on what your values are and should be? If it does help in that regard, it would have a point, even if it's apparently ineffective in any other regard.

Oh, it does! That, along with reading my Bible, studying academic literature, and fellowshipping in conversation with other Christians. So, yes, spouting God's Will to the world does help me maintain some of the moral focus I need in my Christian life.

I was thinking of something in the present. Unless your view of eschatology is that we're already in the end times and the Mark is some metaphor for something else that's going on.

Yes, my view of eschatology is already "present" in that I think it's been going on since the time of Jesus until today ... ...I could be wrong about that. But since I have my own reasons for saying this without at the same time being all dogmatic about it, I'm somewhat confident of my position and of my moral outlook on the world.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure, if the goal is to convince you, but I don't think that's the goal. The goal is for you to be aware of a certain standards of virtue that they see you not living up to, which may or may not nudge you in a direction of certain behavioral preference.

If the goal is only to make people aware that the Christian disapproves, that's easy. But why care that others are aware of your disapproval if that's all your after? Unless the "nudge" is the real goal.

Again, let's say that someone named their dog "N***r" out of disagreement that there's anything wrong with that concept, and they would walk around in a crowded city calling their dog to comply with their commands using that word (I know, it's beginning to sound like a Chapelle skit).

Would you really need to convince them that such act is racist or at least received as racist before you you merely point out that it is? I understand that it may be ineffective, but collective ethics IS in fact a network of these "virtue signals" that express distaste with certain behavior that holds cultures together.

From certain Christian POV pointing to certain concept of sinful behavior is not any different than our present cultural hunt for misogyny, homophobia and racism. Much of it (if not most) is emotionally-driven, and not based on reason.

That's a pretty apt comparison if you look at the techniques employed. I think it's pretty clear that people fighting for social justice don't just want to make people aware of their disapproval. The goal is to affect change in behavior. Folks don't want to just make the owner of that dog aware that they don't like his pet's name, they want him locked up and the dog put down. Okay, not that far. And sure, it's mostly irrational, and sure, it's presented much in the same way as a Christian would shout "That's sinful!" a SJW would shout "That's racist!". But if the goals are different, I don't think the comparison is useful. I don't really think the goals are different though, do you?

 

[Moral Orel]

While it is true that various ethical frameworks all have "reason" in common, I don't think there's much of a danger in conflating immorality with the biblical notion of sin, the later is more of an encompassing term than the former, really. Moreover, citing reason as a commonality between attempts at human ethics and morality is also fraught with the potential for falling into the genetic fallacy. To add to this, I might take a cue from Martin Luther in saying that we have to be careful with reason. Actually, this would be me saying that we have to be basically be careful with how we think we're subscribing to the essence of reason in our ethical thinking; Luther on the other hand thought “reason is the devil’s harlot,” or that it could at least be prone to be hired out as such if not guarded for.

Like I said I don't even need to defend reason as being better. That doesn't matter. If we knew somehow that reason always led to the worst outcomes my statements would still stand. Logic is a language, and faith is a language. They don't translate well. Don't take that the wrong way. I'm sure you have reasons for your faith, but that's they part you don't feel obliged to discuss.

...no, I think we can have a chat about it, especially if we share a common language, a common culture (as in both of us being in the U.S.), some basic familiarity with life, politics, law, social structures, and even at least minimal familiarity with Christianity. So, no, I think we can have a chat, especially since both of us are otherwise educated individuals.

Not about the morality of it. The surrounding issues, some of them, sure. But not whether it's right or wrong to do a thing that you believe to be wrong based on faith. Prove me wrong. Go back to that thread and post a reason I should care that she's dressed the way she is.

Yes, my view of eschatology is already "present" in that I think it's been going on since the time of Jesus until today ... ...I could be wrong about that. But since I have my own reasons for saying this without at the same time being all dogmatic about it, I'm somewhat confident of my position and of my moral outlook on the world.

So what is the "Mark" a metaphor for?

 

[Moral Orel]

Because sin is a universal and public concept, grounded in reason. If someone isn't a Christian and doesn't really understand what sin means I would tell them they are doing something wrong, or that they are acting immorally.

It's only grounded in reason if you take it all the way back to showing a reason to believe in the Christian God. If you're not going to do that, it isn't grounded in reason. If you are, why not start there?

But that doesn't really answer the question of "why" you do it. What motivates you? What's the goal?

As devolved pointed out, our culture is currently strongly focused on the evil of misogyny. Is it okay for secularists to accuse people of misogyny?

Sure. And it's okay for Christians to call out whatever they think is sinful too. Remember, this isn't a complaint about, "Hey, keep your religion to yourselves!". This is an inquiry into how effective your strategy is to accomplish... well, I'm not so clear on that.

 

[zippy2006]

It's only grounded in reason if you take it all the way back to showing a reason to believe in the Christian God.

No, sin and heresy are not the same thing.

But that doesn't really answer the question of "why" you do it. What motivates you? What's the goal?

If you want to live a full human life you avoid sin. If you want to be rational you avoid sin. For example, gluttony is a sin and this is well known by religious and secular Americans alike.

Did you even read my post?

 

[Moral Orel]

No, sin and heresy are not the same thing.

Tell my why, without using the Bible, taking the Lord's name in vain is immoral. Taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin, no? If I stub my toe at home all by myself, why shouldn't I exclaim "G D that sofa leg!"?

If you want to live a full human life you avoid sin. If you want to be rational you avoid sin. For example, gluttony is a sin and this is well known by religious and secular Americans alike.

What in the world? I didn't ask why people should act morally.

Why do you tell people they're sinning? What motivates you to tell people that they're sinning? What is your goal when you tell people they're sinning?

Did you even read my post?

I did. I think the confusion lies in the fact that you aren't answering the actual question. Did you even read the OP past the first sentence?

 

[zippy2006]

Tell my why, without using the Bible, taking the Lord's name in vain is immoral. Taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin, no? If I stub my toe at home all by myself, why shouldn't I exclaim "G D that sofa leg!"?

Whenever you fraternally correct someone there must be a possibility of amendment--that they will hear and change. I do not correct atheists who take the name of the Lord in vain, and it is possible that there is no culpability on their part.

But it is immoral because it is immoral to take the highest idea the human tongue can utter and use it as an expletive. The more someone understands what that word means, the greater the sin.

What in the world? I didn't ask why people should act morally.

Why do you tell people they're sinning? What motivates you to tell people that they're sinning? What is your goal when you tell people they're sinning?

Love. I want people to have life in abundance. Are we really that far gone that this isn't the most obvious thing in the world? You may as well have asked me why I would give a starving man food.

 

[Chriliman]

The typical perspective from "Romans road to salvation" camp is that in order for people to see how great God is they have to first acknowledge how terrible they are. The idea is that you can't see God unless you see God as a necessary means to fixing your human condition, and if you don't see your condition in need of fixing... then you can't see God.

It's not always the case that if you don't see your condition as needing fixed then you can't see God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like I said I don't even need to defend reason as being better. That doesn't matter. If we knew somehow that reason always led to the worst outcomes my statements would still stand. Logic is a language, and faith is a language. They don't translate well. Don't take that the wrong way.

....actually, I generally agree with this, and if you've read any of the things I've said about my view on Biblical epistemology, there's a reason 'why' Logic and Faith only ------------------and can only----------------------partially overlap. But for some gosh-awful "reason," everyone today seems to have drunk at least some of the Modernist kool-aid and have come to think that finding faith in Christ just HAS to be a pure project for the rational mind. And when I hear this, I just pass the mic over to Blaise Pascal...

I'm sure you have reasons for your faith, but that's they part you don't feel obliged to discuss.

Actually, I've given lots of reasons, but noone seems to either be listening or willing to fully engage my sources.......................................

Fortunately, I'm more than willing to engage and to 'drill' the views and sources of my opponents; and sometimes I even draw upon various ideas among non-Christians to support my views. So, let's have no more of this "2PV, you've been avoiding the conversation, stuff."

Not about the morality of it. The surrounding issues, some of them, sure. But not whether it's right or wrong to do a thing that you believe to be wrong based on faith. Prove me wrong. Go back to that thread and post a reason I should care that she's dressed the way she is.

Can we honestly say that a world in which all women dress like the gal in that other thread would be a "better" world, especially if they do it for the neural network of reasons related to ... what I briefly encapsulate below? Somehow, I don't think so!

So what is the "Mark" a metaphor for?

It's a metaphor for much of what passes today as "Modern, Liberal, Pluralistic and/or Materialist" thought, a kind of thinking that has been around well before modern times. The difference between how it has manifested in the past versus how it does so now is that what there is of it today is bigger, more substantive, and pervades the masses rather than being more or less something relegated to the privilege of the elites, and this matrix of thought has, today, essentially made inroads into every nation.