I think you meant the atheist as the theist may believe in sin.

If you define sinful as wrong in the eyes of God then no I don't consider behaviours sinful I consider them wrong. I prefer not to use evil as it seems loaded. But that doesn't deprive me of my reasons to not do wrong.

I do do wrong theists don't have a monopoly on accepting they are less than perfect

Yep, I meant atheist, thank you.

I think this is the problem with the conversation. The theist will define sin as an abstract concept which the atheist will not recognize. They can agree that both are capable of *wrong* and *right* (as straight-forward definitions) they will not agree in the more abstract definitions.

If the only point is to say that the atheist is capable of acting in a way that is equal to or greater than a theist, that's fairly evident, but any agreement will end there, and it's almost besides the point.

This is not true. This is just a distraction that they are creating in order to sidestep the content and substance of what is being said. And even if it was true, the point I made still stands.


This is fair. If a theist knew he could get away with a crime or sin, and not be caught by human authorities, and yet be forgiven later by some sort of purification rite, it would not be much different (though, it still is different, no?). But my concern is not with nameless theists, but with Christians. Christians are commanded not to behave in this manner, or their salvation will be in possible jeopardy. Paul speaks about it at length.

While I agree with this, there is more to a Christian not doing the wrong thing for fear of consequences alone.

This is no different than someone not cheating on their spouse only because they may get caught, there are many reasons why one would not do this.

YOU are the one coming up with hypothetical atheists who are psychopathic murders and don't care about dead Christian children. YOU are the one causing the "distraction".

How do you rectify this kind of thinking with predestination, though? A lot of times atheists here say something to me like: well, you only do good because you fear God or if you only do good because of fear of God, that ain't true goodness.

But what I don't think they realize is that as Christians, we are called and chosen before the world began (according to our beliefs.) So, for example, I may feel that I am good inside, and that is why I was chosen.

Or- maybe all of the truly good people align themselves with the gospel message of Christ when they hear it.

I suppose we are all "good" if you define it loosely enough, though.

They sometime seem to have an odd sense of goodness, imo. Like if someone locked himself up in a room all day and just did nothing with his life but eat and drink- is he good? He never murdered anyone. He never abused anyone. But is taking yourself out of the game a form of goodness? Sometimes tells me there is more to it than that.

I'll tell you one thing, though- there is no goodness in being anti-christian, imo. That's where I'd tread carefully. As a proponent of Pascal's wager, I think such an attitude is just plain stupid, as well.

Honestly dude, either you are just trolling me at this point, or you are having some kind of emotional meltdown. I'll pray for ya, pal. But I'm just going to ignore you for a while on here.

It's somewhat different in that they have to perform the rite and then be granted their purity by the right (btw I'm including Christians in this when asking for forgiveness from God). But the fact still remains they are clear of conscience but still guilty of the crime regardless of their belief or nonbelief in a diety or dieties and still performed those acts despite their beliefs.

What I'm suggesting is the idea of a fear of future justice is a moot point if there exists a way for you to avoid such justice through purification or forgiveness of some kind. This is true whether you grant yourself the purity or obtain through other means valid to your belief structure.

So no there is no difference between a sociopathic atheist serial killer ignoring society's laws and not fearing retribution bc he doesn't believe any exists and a sociopathic theist serial killer ignoring society's laws and not fearing retribution because he believes there is a way to find purity and salvation in his belief system. The consequences and the conscience for both men are the same.
Sent from my SCH-R760X using 2+2 Forums

Even within predestination, there is no reason to condense the whole Christian walk as to only fearing the consequences.

This is an aspect of the Christian walk, but you know that without love these things are nothing but a "resounding gong". The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but remember that Paul says that even though he "does what he does not want to do", he has the "desire" to do good, not the burden to do good for fear of the results. Similarly to not cheating on your spouse, you may fear the consequences, but love plays a large role.

That is not to say that some people only remain faithful because the results are devastating, it's far more multi-layered than that alone.

1) put me on ignore from what we both suspect is honest mistake for years
2) first interaction after taking me off ignore you strongly imply I don't care about dead Christian children
3) the second thread I bring this point up you put me back on ignore and say I am having an emotional meltdown.

Not trolling. Just hoping we can have a conversation where if one person is worried the other has accused them of not caring about dead Christian children the resolution can be a quick "nope! I DONT think you don't care about dead Christian children, sorry!"

That is why I no longer believe in any religious system right there. If you're in the system you're good or better than people that aren't. That is the first step towards dehumanizing other people that don't share your beliefs.

Not saying you do or you will but it's a slippery slope.

Morality has a subjective quality. Even the absolutes (value of human life for example) can be made to be subjective (i.e. Trolley Problem) with no answer being inherently good or bad.


I agree that being anti anything to the point that it pollutes your thoughts and hardens your mind to alternative views is counter productive.

Sent from my SCH-R760X using 2+2 Forums

There is no difference in that they both BELIEVE that they won't be punished, but this seems somewhat irrelevant.

Repentance in Christianity is crucial because it is tied into your faith. If you do believe in God, presumably you would not continue being a serial killer just because you believe you won't be punished for it.

I know I'm close to "no true scotsman" here, but there is a distinction in merely saying you're a Christian, and believing in Christ.

Is it possible for people to believe that their actions are exempt because they believe in Christ? Yes, but are they actually exempt? Not necessarily.

It's not that I won't agree with your definition of sin it just belongs to a metaphysical framework I don't share. This being the case it seems preferable we use terms we can agree on. I'm okay with you considering something sinful. I know what that concept means to you but you also understand what I mean be right and wrong and if you want to discuss sinful in terms I can agree on then we're good.

I agree that we can accept some definitions, namely "good" and "bad", but since we have different concepts of what these entail, we won't be able to agree at an absolute level.

So, while I can agree with your previous statement that you don't need Christ for you not to murder anyone, the actual implications of this are irrelevant in that they don't make you any more "good" in the biblical sense of good. That is, achieving some morality or goodness outside of the Christian God is not possible to the Christian, even if you can show a "good" atheist, which I do not doubt exist.

His argument was the fear of a punishment was not there for the atheist to disincentivize the atheist from obstaining from something sinful or amoral. Not that the punishment didn't exist.

What I'm saying is if the theist believes he will not be punished because of the ability to obtain purity or forgivness then he has no fear of punishment to prevent him from acting in exactly the same manner as the atheist.

Belief of no punishment is all that is needed here for them to behave in exactly the same way regardless of their belief or non-belief in a diety or dieties.

Sent from my SCH-R760X using 2+2 Forums

Hogwash. You can achieve 'Good' outside of Chritianity that is identical in every way to christian teachings. People just become 'bad' to Christians when they don't believe in their God or salvation through Jesus.

Put it another way - if you saw a stranger on the street that was handing out food and blankets to the homeless and paid a doctor to follow them to provide basic check-ups and medical care would you say they are good without knowing anything about their religious affiliation?

Sent from my SCH-R760X using 2+2 Forums

This is a fair point, they may behave exactly the same because they do not fear punishment, but the greater overall point is that they may not be right. There is some contradiction in believing you can do whatever you want as a Christian and not be punished for it, so I'm not sure the theist you are describing here is actually a Christian. I don't doubt that you can find theists that believe they won't be punished for their deeds and continue to act immorally, but that is not what Christianity is about, since love is at the centre.

Yeah, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that you can't be good by the traditional definition of good. You can find atheists that are better people than theists, but within the doctrine of Christianity (I'm not saying this is right) you can only be good through God, so it's irrelevant if you are helping the homeless or whatever else.

This is my point, that since we cannot agree with the definition of good and bad at a foundational level, we will never agree in absolute terms. What I am not saying is that atheists are bad people, or incapable of doing good.

You probably aren't good at logic. Starting a hypothetical with "a" strong atheist means you assume nothing more than strong atheism for that person. Nothing from there includes an added supposition or classification, which means that your hypothetical is to be interpreted as applying generally to strong atheists.

Nobody is claiming that you said all strong atheists are murderers. I'll go ahead and break down your hypothetical into small steps to show what you're saying:

1) Start with a generic strong atheist.
2) Clarify the concept of a strong atheist.

3) As a consequence of his strong atheism, he will do something if he believes he can get away without being caught by human authorities.

4) As an example, if it were the case that he could kill someone he hated and get away with it, that's what he will do.

5) Conclusion: This is how one lives as a strong atheist.

We don't have to agree at an absolute level, I'm good with the response though.

I think we understand each other. Fwiw, the best person I have ever known is an atheist.

Yeah I understand that for the theist that holds being without god is a sin that the atheist will always be in a state of sin. I understand this isn't an accusation when it comes from you merely a logical consequence of your beliefs and I'm cool with that.

My only contempt comes when Doggg suggests that this frees the atheist to commit acts that are both committed by theists and wrong by any commonly understood moral framework. And in doing so caricatures atheists, we don't need to understand murderers by their relation to God.

As it stands I'm not an atheist but my account of God is sufficiently distinct from yours that I would be considered to be in sin and I'm also cool with that.

Sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational I know you are generally applying the principles of Christianity as you have interpreted and leanred their meaning through shared experience.

I was raised Christian and my experience, interpretations, and teachings had not made the distinction that only through God are Christians good so perhaps it's actually my pre-atheist beliefs that are counter to the ideas you have presented to me It's all good though. Thanks for the discussion.

Sent from my SCH-R760X using 2+2 Forums

Thank you, I'm far too often misunderstood to be accusing people, when I'm only explaining the basic tenets.

I'll leave that to Doggg, I don't want to put words in his mouth.

I find this intriguing, can you point me to a thread where you may have discussed this, or give me some cliff notes about your beliefs?

Not at all, it's an interesting discussion, I took no offence.

Yeah I get where you're coming from here and I wouldn't want you to answer for Doggg I was only really mentioning it to explain my presence in this thread.

There's a couple of posts about but the short story is I arrived in RGT a couple of years ago with some pretty vague notions of my theism. I'd been christened as an adult about 10 years earlier after a prolonged period of pretty vaguely understood atheism. It wasn't ever that important.

I then considered my beliefs more rigorously couldn't reconcile some beliefs, have some sympathies to the arguments for a non personal God and so have drifted to deism. This is quite likely the last vestiges of my theism hanging on but given religion no longer has any moral relevance to me it's not particularly important.