You Just Keep Sinning

[Darth Rotor]

Avalon - your response to the question about sin is very subjective. Are you implying that your way of interpretation is the only right way? You seem to speak with final authority...

TBH, I have found your posts to be of the Joel Osteen variety. Your spin of selected verses gives the impression of a scolding rather than a hell fire and brimstone response from god where sin is concerned. But I thank you for participating.


You just want to keep sinning is the mantra of certain posters on the board to explain why an atheist is what s/he is. And yet they have not brought forth a reasonable explanation for what this actually means. I find this frustrating because it's an accusation that no one seems to want to explain. It's also meant (as far as I am concerned) as an insult to the atheist.

Should I say "You're a fundie because you're weak and you have to rely on a sky daddy to keep you in line"? when I am told I am an atheist because "I just want to keep sinning?" To me it's the same thing.

Insulting.

Monster

Is the problem one of phrasing?

"Just want to keep sinning"
"Just choose to keep sinning"
"Sin because being human you can't help it, be ye atheist or of a religious bent"

Which would you find the more insulting?

DR

 

[shadron]

And while the 'religious' have at various times discoursed on the varying types of punishments purportedly enacted for various sins (Dante's Inferno, e.g.), it still all comes down to 'eternity', which is overkill (no pun intended) for mass genocidal maniac or one-time inappropriate minor sinner.

To appease those who might get into bits of trouble over this large disparity, several escapes have been concocted:

1. Last rites - so you can get forgiven for any and every sin just before death. This is a rather contrived and badly considered idea as it has an inequality built into it. That is, the mass genocidal maniac can get last rites before death and go to heaven whereas the one-time minor sinner who dies without goes to hell. That is not justice in any form whatsoever. It is just capricious and stupid. Can't say much more about the idiocy involved in this idea.

2. Related to 'last rites' is confession. This is sort of the continual forgiveness process so that your arse is covered in such an event that you expire without some priest within reach.

3. Neither of these always being satisfactory, it was decided by some churches that 'good' people who've done not-so-bad things don't suffer in hell. They go to an intermediate incarceration called purgatory (lit. place or state of purging). After the 'purging' then they go to heaven.

4. When all else fails, there once was a way literally to buy your way out of hell and into heaven - or at least towards the latter with less penance. These were called Indulgences and worked as replacement for stauncher penances required after confession.

The church has somewhat softened the stance over time as noted. 'If you sin then you go to hell for eternity' isn't the only option. These alternatives and purification schemes were probably put into place to avoid scaring the flock so thoroughly that they'd rather not even be part of the religion.

In some interpretations of NT epistemology though, Jesus died for your sins (all of them, not just the original one). The notion being that if you 'accept' Jesus, sometimes followed by a baptism, then you were purified and simply need to be sorry (repent) for any sins you commit thereafter. This is why suicide is considered an 'unforgivable sin' because the act itself (leading to death) leaves no means of repetence.

Let's bring this down to Earth. These beliefs are approximately the Roman Catholic ones about sin and repentance; they are precisely the ones attacked by Martin Luther in his door-decorating. Last Rites doesn't forgive one's sins; Penance, which usually accompanies the Last Rites does (being parsimonious, the church doctors didn't make two sacraments to do the same thing).

I was going to post about someone earlier who stated that people on RR were saying all sin is the same. This was a reaction to the Catholic belief at the time of the Revolt/Reformation that sins were mortal or venial, the former hell-demanding, the latter being sent on to fish on a tributary of the Arkansas (oops, something is lost in translation there). You didn't even touch on Limbo, which lasted until the last 50 years and then condemned to make way for subterranean renewal. Indulgences worked like Green Stamps to buy time out of Purgatory, but only for those peccadillo venial sins.

All in all, they served the purpose in paying for some broken crusades and a new paint job once in a while in the Vatican. They are pretty much a dead letter today in most any religion, although I hear that Opus Dei is working hard to get the scoring methods back (or at least Mr. Brown says so).

I have no beef with your thesis, just want to make sure everyone knows where the bodies are and who kicked out out the candle.

 

[shadron]

You're just making this up

Naw, he's got a cribsheet.

 

[Monster Machine]

Is the problem one of phrasing?

"Just want to keep sinning"
"Just choose to keep sinning"
"Sin because being human you can't help it, be ye atheist or of a religious bent"

Which would you find the more insulting?

DR

All three.

"Just want to keep sinning"
"Just choose to keep sinning"
These both mean the same thing to me. These statements assume I am currently sinning and and aware of it, and because I enjoy it, I refuse to believe in god. But what is this sin I am committing?

"Sin because being human you can't help it, be ye atheist or of a religious bent"
This assumes an atheist is bound by the christian definition of sin. If religious people are / should be aware of the expectations of the diety in question, then yes, they would be in sin. But what is this sin I am committing?

I take responsibility for my actions, how I love, how I treat others, etc. The assumption is that I can't do this or it's somehow tainted because I don't have the approval of god, is an insult. It's also an insult to those of other faiths.

Monster

 

[Cainkane1]

This phrase gets thrown around a lot by the christians on this board.

While I understand most of the Chosen on this board can't really decide on which version of the christian god is the right one, I am curious to know what the differences are in regards to sin.

This is a three part question:

What exactly is sinning?

Is one sin worse than another?

Why do you feel atheists reject gods because they "want to keep sinning"?

Monster

Christians stalk me alot. One of my posts describes a man who went from one bar to another looking for me because he liked to argue religion with me. I actually had another stalker. He was a Presbyterian minister wannabe who had flunked out of seminary school. I'd be at break and hed pick a religious oriented fight with me. I changed break times and so did he. The allure of saying "well you just keep thinking like that" was more than he could resist.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But what is this sin I am committing?

Again, I don't claim to know what specific wrongful acts you have done or will do. And, in fact, if you've never done anything wrong, and are perfect already, then you don't need Jesus' sacrifice at all.
But if you have done wrong, like the rest of us, then you're as much in need of Jesus as everyone else.

 

[Oliver]

This phrase gets thrown around a lot by the christians on this board.

While I understand most of the Chosen on this board can't really decide on which version of the christian god is the right one, I am curious to know what the differences are in regards to sin.

This is a three part question:

What exactly is sinning?

Is one sin worse than another?

Why do you feel atheists reject gods because they "want to keep sinning"?

Monster

Actually you would have to define morality and sin first before you ask the question, do you acknowledge that cultural fact?

 

[Monster Machine]

Again, I don't claim to know what specific wrongful acts you have done or will do. And, in fact, if you've never done anything wrong, and are perfect already, then you don't need Jesus' sacrifice at all.
But if you have done wrong, like the rest of us, then you're as much in need of Jesus as everyone else.

Your second sentence is a little snide, and I don't much appreciate it.

Moreover, if I have done something wrong (like cheated on a partner, for example) why do I need to involve a diety who offers no evidence of its existance? Should I not apologize to my partner? Why do I have to do both?

It appears, based on what I have bolded, that you have an idea of things that someone could do wrong.

What are they specifically?

Monster

 

[Monster Machine]

Actually you would have to define morality and sin first before you ask the question, do you acknowledge that cultural fact?

No. I don't have to define morality and sin. The christians who accuse me of being an atheist because I just want to sin need to provide the definitions.

So far, I'm getting vague responses that boil down to emotional responses, rather than concrete examples.

Monster

 

[AvalonXQ]

Your second sentence is a little snide, and I don't much appreciate it.

I'm sorry if you took it that way. The sentence is not intended to be snide. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that, in my religion, I do not decide whether or not you're a sinner; you do. In general, we're told to share the message with everyone, because everyone sins; but in each specific instance, the only one that can make a useful judgment about sins is the individual him- or herself.

You have an idea, then, of things that someone could do wrong.
What are they specifically?

Some examples include: treating others unkindly, failing to treat others kindly when you had the opportunity, being spiteful or malicious toward someone, acting out against someone because of anger or insecurity, being selfish, acting as though you are better than other people, failing to obey when asked to do something good, breaking the rules, hating rather than loving others...
... there is no exhaustive list of "sins", because "sins" are, by and large, simply examples of failing to act the way you were made to act and the way God expects you to act: with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

 

[Darth Rotor]

All three.

"Just want to keep sinning"
"Just choose to keep sinning"
These both mean the same thing to me. These statements assume I am currently sinning and and aware of it, and because I enjoy it,

No assumption of "because I enjoy it" but that might be a contributing facor in the second.

I refuse to believe in god. But what is this sin I am committing?

To sin is to err, IMO you are asserting far too much religious connotation into the usage. No matter.

"Sin because being human you can't help it, be ye atheist or of a religious bent"
This assumes an atheist is bound by the christian definition of sin.

No, it doesn't. Whether you are religious or not, being human puts you in the condition of making screw ups. Some call this sin without religious context, some do not. (See also the recent Tiger Woods "transgressions" usage in a non religious context thanks to his philandering).

Thanks for your reply.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Christians stalk me alot.

Maybe you smell like Jesus to them, or Mary Magdalene.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Maybe you smell like Jesus to them, or Mary Magdalene.

Maybe he smells like the Devil and they're the Christian Assassins of Shadowy DOOM...

 

[Darth Rotor]

I was going to post about someone earlier who stated that people on RR were saying all sin is the same. This was a reaction to the Catholic belief at the time of the Revolt/Reformation that sins were mortal or venial, the former hell-demanding, the latter being sent on to fish on a tributary of the Arkansas (oops, something is lost in translation there).

The venial and mortal distinction is still made in RCC doctrine, FWIW.

All sins are not the same, in that framework. I am not well enough read to understand how the various Protestant sects handle the distinction, if at all.

DR

 

[AvalonXQ]

The venial and mortal distinction is still made in RCC doctrine, FWIW.
All sins are not the same, in that framework. I am not well enough read to understand how the various Protestant sects handle the distinction, if at all.

I don't know how the Protestants do it. We Restorationists tend to not make the distinction at all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't know how the Protestants do it. We Restorationists tend to not make the distinction at all.

OK, I am intrigued. How is a Restorationist not a Protestant, of some sort?

I'll take a look, but horse's mouth would be handy.

DR

 

[AvalonXQ]

OK, I am intrigued. How is a Restorationist not a Protestant, of some sort?

Protestants descend from the Reformation Movement.
The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement broke from Luther's Reformation Movement, claiming that any man-made creeds, or reliance on doctrines outside of the Bible itself, is contrary to the proper nature of the Church. We're not Catholic because we don't accept the man-made doctrines of the Catholic Church, and we're not Protestant because we don't accept the man-made doctrines of the Reformers either. In fact, the majority of the members of my church don't even know anything about the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement itself. Since all that is preached and taught religiously comes directly from the Bible, that's all that's needed to understand and practice our beliefs.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Protestants descend from the Reformation Movement.
The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement broke from Luther's Reformation Movement, claiming that any man-made creeds, or reliance on doctrines outside of the Bible itself, is contrary to the proper nature of the Church. We're not Catholic because we don't accept the man-made doctrines of the Catholic Church, and we're not Protestant because we don't accept the man-made doctrines of the Reformers either. In fact, the majority of the members of my church don't even know anything about the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement itself. Since all that is preached and taught religiously comes directly from the Bible, that's all that's needed to understand and practice our beliefs.

Thanks, a much pithier explanation than what I found in a wiki article. Is your denomination anti trinitarian as well? What I was led to believe was water immersion/usage is key to baptism, but I began to get confused when I saw a number of Restoration sects being anti trinitarian.

Does Matthew 28:19 apply in practice?

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

DR

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Maybe you smell like Jesus to them, or Mary Magdalene.

Given the state of personal hygiene at that point in history... Ewwwwwwwwwwwww.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Given the state of personal hygiene at that point in history... Ewwwwwwwwwwwww.

I hadn't considered that.

@Cainecaine1: I apologize for any misunderstanding in that jest, I wasn't trying to imply that you stink.