God Bashing at Its Best

[Jdsizzleslice]

You are completely missing the point. You try to make a dichotomy between science and religion. I think what people are rather debating here is weather or not you NEED to be a religious person, or you NEED religion in order to care about others. Like religion is the only thing that saves us from killing, raping, stealing etc... You pretend that if there is no religion, then nothing we do matters. I will say it again: if this is really what you think, you are by definition a sociopath. I cannot discuss humanism with someone whose only sense of others and empathy relies on a magic man living on a cloud that could punish him if he doesn't behave with empathy towards others.

So, in your opinion, where does the human moral compass come from? How is morality explained?

[HitRed]

*Takes a seat to listen*

[betiko]

You are completely missing the point. You try to make a dichotomy between science and religion. I think what people are rather debating here is weather or not you NEED to be a religious person, or you NEED religion in order to care about others. Like religion is the only thing that saves us from killing, raping, stealing etc... You pretend that if there is no religion, then nothing we do matters. I will say it again: if this is really what you think, you are by definition a sociopath. I cannot discuss humanism with someone whose only sense of others and empathy relies on a magic man living on a cloud that could punish him if he doesn't behave with empathy towards others.

So, in your opinion, where does the human moral compass come from? How is morality explained?

take things from a different angle. What made our specie thrive compared to other species? We managed at some point to stand on our back legs and use tools... our brains and intelligence became one of our major perks, then we also lost our fur which made it possible for us to regulate better our body temperature while running in hunt mode.... while working as a team. We are designed to be social animals working in team for our own good and the own good of the group.
We also have an extremely elaborated communiation within our specie. Before, that communication could not be written. Everything learnt by your ancestors had to be transmitted verbally from a generation to the next. Death has always affected our ancestors... to the point where elaborated ceremonies and different cultures emerged between different tribes... Then yes.... tribe A meets tribe B... sometimes they make trades friends... sometimesthey make enemies and kill, rape and steal everything from tribe B. but I'm highly convinced that doing that within tribe A would always get you into trouble, otherwise tribe A would no thrive. Or would work under a despotic regime that would be overthrown at some point.
My guess is that tribe A has always sold itself to its own people as protected by made up entities they had to pay tribute to in order to get good harvests/hunts/fertility/curation/thoughts for dead ancestors.... you name it. basically anything. The human mind has always needed a comfy blanket for everything it has no possibility to deal against. The only thing.. is that technology and science happened... and that more and more of these fields are being covered. Answers given.
Others that we can't get answers to and probably will never get. So is the safest bet to think that if we don't have answers to everything... it's a proof that magic man on his cloud exists? That everything has a purpose including yourself? And that if there isn't any greater plan about yourself, then it doesn't matter if you go full columbine or something?
Yes... scientifically... the human and our lifes are so meaningless weshouldn't even bother to talk about all this. But we are minds trapped in human bodies, that's our condition. What other minds trapped in other human bodies do and think is important to us. It doesn't mean it would be important for a greater entity... Our lives and history clearly prove that if there is a greater entity he couldn't give less of a shit about us. We're on our own and we don't need made up stuff to keep going forward or from doing stuff that would work against our society.

[Jdsizzleslice]

A lot to unpack here.

I would like to mention up front that your response in no way answered my question. I will ask again, because I'm looking for a more streamlined answer than a response that is all over the place, so it's possible you misunderstood what I was really looking for: How can morality be explained, and where does human morality come from? If "religion" doesn't answer the question of where morality comes from, then what does?

But, there are a lot of interesting things you stated, so I'll just take this bit by bit.

take things from a different angle. What made our specie thrive compared to other species? We managed at some point to stand on our back legs and use tools... our brains and intelligence became one of our major perks, then we also lost our fur which made it possible for us to regulate better our body temperature while running in hunt mode.... while working as a team. We are designed to be social animals working in team for our own good and the own good of the group.

The human race always evolves to its surroundings. And I agree, humans were made for companionship, fellowship, and teamwork. The question I have for this section of your response is, what does "for our own good" mean? What is "good"? What is the purpose for our desire as humans to have companionship?

We also have an extremely elaborated communiation within our specie. Before, that communication could not be written. Everything learnt by your ancestors had to be transmitted verbally from a generation to the next. Death has always affected our ancestors... to the point where elaborated ceremonies and different cultures emerged between different tribes... Then yes.... tribe A meets tribe B... sometimes they make trades friends... sometimesthey make enemies and kill, rape and steal everything from tribe B. but I'm highly convinced that doing that within tribe A would always get you into trouble, otherwise tribe A would no thrive. Or would work under a despotic regime that would be overthrown at some point.

Well, to be quite honest, the human race have always had written and spoken language differences. It really wasn't until after the Printing Press where we started to see written and spoken language merge and be more uniform. What I really think you're trying to say is that until modern times, most knowledge was tribal knowledge, and not widely known knowledge. I would agree somewhat, but to accept the notion that only tribal knowledge in society was present and uniform knowledge was absent detracts from the point of a shared common moral framework we have as humans. Would the same moral framework for humans still exist today if we only had tribal knowledge?

My guess is that tribe A has always sold itself to its own people as protected by made up entities they had to pay tribute to in order to get good harvests/hunts/fertility/curation/thoughts for dead ancestors.... you name it. basically anything. The human mind has always needed a comfy blanket for everything it has no possibility to deal against. The only thing.. is that technology and science happened... and that more and more of these fields are being covered. Answers given.

What you are referencing is the shift to an agrarian society in most of the world. Even then, the same basic concept remains: that I have something to offer for your something, and we exchange. It's become more streamlined today in terms of banking, currency and the workplace. Would the moral framework of humans still exist today, even if we had not transformed into an agrarian society?

Others that we can't get answers to and probably will never get. So is the safest bet to think that if we don't have answers to everything... it's a proof that magic man on his cloud exists? That everything has a purpose including yourself? And that if there isn't any greater plan about yourself, then it doesn't matter if you go full columbine or something?

There are questions we will never be able to find the answer as a human race. However, the rationale behind asking questions behind purpose or intentionality are not questions to which an immediate answer is required. Most times, it takes people years, or decades, to answer the questions regarding life fulfillment. The plan regarding your life, or my life, is an ongoing process, just as is someone's life who decides to commit acts of violence. People who reach this conclusion don't immediately decide they feel as if have no purpose, but instead made the decision over a period of time. Why do we as a society see tragedies like Columbine and think they are tragedies? Why does our internal moral compass tell us that senseless death is a bad thing?

Yes... scientifically... the human and our lifes are so meaningless weshouldn't even bother to talk about all this. But we are minds trapped in human bodies, that's our condition. What other minds trapped in other human bodies do and think is important to us. It doesn't mean it would be important for a greater entity... Our lives and history clearly prove that if there is a greater entity he couldn't give less of a shit about us. We're on our own and we don't need made up stuff to keep going forward or from doing stuff that would work against our society.

The body and the mind are separate but connected. One cannot exist without the other. One cannot be without affecting the other. A great analogy I like to think is similar to the body/mind complexion is electromagnetism. Electricity has certain properties, and Magnetism has certain properties. Both of which are separate from each other in initial concept but are connected in such a way that you cannot consider one without the other. It's why electronic devices that are more valuable in nature have more magnetic shielding. They are different and reside in their own field (nerd pun), but are affected by each other.

Your body and mind are the same. Push and Pull. When your body gets hungry, your mental stability changes, and you become more irritable. When your mind is undergoing stress, your body will react accordingly.

Don't conflate the scientific process and apply that to things that are not held to the same scientific standard. Philosophy and Science have different contextualized zones in which they are allowed to operate. Science is purely things of the physical world, or things related to your body. Philosophy is purely related to things of the mental world, or your mind. For example, we can both agree that if systemic racism existed in an arbitrary government, then that would be condemnable. However, what mathematical equation can you write that proves systemic racism is immoral? These two realms processes (science and philosophy) cannot be intermingled with each other.

A lot of people want a physical or bodily answer to a question that requires a philosophical answer in nature, or vice-versa. The key to answering many of life's questions is knowing what type of answer your question warrants. What kind of question are you asking, and what kind of answer are you wanting to receive?

[DoomYoshi]

let's face it... you just need someone to take you by your hand because you are unable to take care of yourself on your own. religion is your comfy blanket that helps you sleep at night.
Why would humans lives not matter if there was no god? If you think such think then you are a dangerous sociopath... you know it and you rely on those BS beliefs to save yourself from yourself.

I can demonstrate that human lives don't matter in a scientific sense. Every culture in the world has several words for warrior. A toddler does not need to be taught the rules of boxing, they instinctively understand that the person knocked out lost. People are comfortable exploiting other people until the furor grows enough that they care. You wouldn't buy clothes made in Bangladesh if you thought that those garment workers' lives had the same value as yours.

You are completely missing the point. You try to make a dichotomy between science and religion. I think what people are rather debating here is weather or not you NEED to be a religious person, or you NEED religion in order to care about others. Like religion is the only thing that saves us from killing, raping, stealing etc... You pretend that if there is no religion, then nothing we do matters. I will say it again: if this is really what you think, you are by definition a sociopath. I cannot discuss humanism with someone whose only sense of others and empathy relies on a magic man living on a cloud that could punish him if he doesn't behave with empathy towards others.

How am I the sociopath? I'm just describing the world as it is. You realize that just last week another war started up again? You realize that every culture in the world has a word for "warrior"? You realize that women are afraid of being raped, even if they've never experienced it? That's not sociopathy, it's human nature.

[DoomYoshi]

I’m atheist, is it ok for me to not be racist too? Or must I default be racist because I’m an atheist?

If there is no God, then it doesn't matter if you are racist.

Why?

A racist is an ass and wrong.

It doesn’t matter to me if that racist believes in God or not... he/she would still be an ass and wrong.

I BELIEVE a non-racist atheist is still a better person than a racist who has a stated belief in God. Continuing with that line of thinking, a world filled with non-religious humanists who are anti-racist would be a better world than a world filled with racist God-fearing Christians. No? Do you disagree?

It’s interesting how you are just ignoring the fact that we need language to communicate... and you are trying to play with the marginal definitions of words to trick me into agreeing with you.

You like asking questions, but you ignore my questions like the bolded one above, that don’t fit your narrative.

Comment on this if you want me to bother playing your game.

I am not playing into marginal definitions of words. If you don't like the idea of borders, we can switch the referent.

How about friends? Do you believe you have friends? Do you believe anyone has friends? What is the scientific experiment that proves that you have friends? If you can't come up with the scientific explanation of friendship, then you must admit that you believe things which are not proven by science.

How about math? What is the scientific experiment which proves that 2+2=4?

How about law? What is the scientific experiment which proves fraud is illegal?

It's not a silly little game. My point is that saying "I only believe in science" is a false statement, no matter who makes it.

--------------------------------------------------------

Onto racism:
Here is a place where definitions really do matter.

By some definitions, all people are racists. This comes from sociological data, which I have posted on this site before. In multicultural communities (not only mixed race, but also mixed religion or mixed language), charitable donations are less than monocultural communities. There are several other measures of community support (willingness to support the public rather than the private good) and in every case a community that is not monocultural is less likely to have community support. Subconsciously (or consciously) if the majority of people who will play on a playground don't look, sound, smell or worship like someone; they don't want to support that project.

This is a fundamental problem with humans. It is called tribalism, and it is a pox upon us.

However, let's narrow our definition a bit and look at particular types of racism. First, and I must note. This is an extremely important point that has been made a billion times in this forum, yet people still don't seem to get it. There is no commonly accepted scientific basis for the idea of "race". A "race" is whatever you think it is. It's a purely subjective reality.

A major example of racism, and probably the most violent is genocide. Rwanda stands out as an example which is exactly what you are talking about. A bunch of racists who killed each other, yet claimed to be Christian (Rwanda was like 90% Christian during the genocides). That's an example where it would be better for them to be atheists than to claim to be Christians. However, and we're back to point one again. There is no scientific distinction between Tutsi and Hutu. There is no genetic difference that can tell them apart. So is it really racism? Who knows?

What about the usual thing that is called racism in North America - saying a word that people don't want to hear? Is that really in the same ballpark as hacking people to death in their homes? Is it the same as what happened in Rwanda where the people fled to the church and the whole church was lit on fire after the doors were locked? Calling both these things "racist", we can see that racism isn't really a matter of the individual action (because the action of gouging a person's eyes out and feeding them to him is quite discontinuous from writing a naughty word in a bathroom stall in Tulsa), but rather the mind and intention behind the action.

Another interesting question of racism comes in monocultural communities. For example, in some areas black people are very rare or non-existent. So a question I was pondering recently was "does it matter if you are racist if there are no people who feel the negative consequences?" The Christian answer is that there is no victimless crime. Racism in your heart leads to death. Since the fundamental problem with racism is in the mind and the intention, that means you are broken from the inside.

Anyways, your question is a false question. You just arbitrarily are deciding what to value. On contrast, I would say a planet would be better with no Christians and no humanists. Look at Jupiter, the biggest and best planet. Can you prove that statement wrong?

Picking between two evils is not really what I'm into. I'd rather focus on whatever is true, noble, just, pure and lovely.

[jimboston]

If there is no God, then it doesn't matter if you are racist.

Why?

A racist is an ass and wrong.

It doesn’t matter to me if that racist believes in God or not... he/she would still be an ass and wrong.

I BELIEVE a non-racist atheist is still a better person than a racist who has a stated belief in God. Continuing with that line of thinking, a world filled with non-religious humanists who are anti-racist would be a better world than a world filled with racist God-fearing Christians. No? Do you disagree?

Anyways, your question is a false question. You just arbitrarily are deciding what to value. On contrast, I would say a planet would be better with no Christians and no humanists. Look at Jupiter, the biggest and best planet. Can you prove that statement wrong?

My question isn’t a false question. You are just TRYING to use dogmatic double-speak to avoid answering the question because the answer doesn’t fit into this world-view you’ve constructed for yourself.

I am using plain English, that everyone understands. You are trying to confuse the point by introducing marginal definitions or completely ignoring the words I’ve chosen and replacing with other similar words that have somewhat different meanings. People here accuse me of playing the semantics game...but you are taking it to a new level.

For example... I didn’t ask if “the planet” would be better... I asked if “this would be a better world”.

Different words... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/world

People know what the word “the world” means, especially in the context in which I used it.

Now you can take some exception with the word “better” as that can (I suppose if you’re an ass) be subjective.
So let me refine what I mean...

When I ask if the world would be better... I mean would the general happiness of people increase, would there be less conflict and more peace, etc.

If there’s more general happiness and less general conflict, then I would define that as “better” for the purpose of this question.

So... answer it... unless you are afraid.

If you somehow have the magically ability to do one of two things, you could either....
- fill the world with non-racist humanists
-or-
- fill the world with racist devout Christians

Which option increase the general happiness of people and results in less conflict?

[DoomYoshi]

Now you can take some exception with the word “better” as that can (I suppose if you’re an ass) be subjective.
So let me refine what I mean...

When I ask if the world would be better... I mean would the general happiness of people increase, would there be less conflict and more peace, etc.

That isn't a valid definition of "better". Why should miserable sinners be made happier? Sinners are only happy when they are making the world a worse place, so the definition is self-defeating.

But if total happiness is your goal, it doesn't matter if somebody is racist or not, as long as everybody is the same either option would work out. The anti-racist humanists can sit around stroking each other's ego and go virtue signalling (thereby increasing their own happiness while not making the world a better place for others). The racist devout Christians can sit around stroking each other's ego and remind each other that the human race really is superior to the animal races (thereby increasing other people's happiness while making the world a worse place for other races).

Either way there would be less conflict and more peace. I'd rather live in the world with the Christians, because the atheist world ends up in judgement.

But you miss the point completely. Most people in the world would rather watch you suffer and take your place as the richest nation in the world. Give the Bangladeshi garment worker a chance to be president of the world and jimboston would find himself working for 8 cents a day. That has nothing to do with racism though. It's just tribalism. There are only so many resources and people will do whatever they can to keep resources away from other families. That is because humans are greedy, fearful creatures.

[jimboston]

again you avoid the question...

and then suggest ai’m making dinner happier?

So a sinner is just someone who doesn’t believe... regardless of their actions and how they treat others.

So a Christian racist who goes out of his way to harm people of other races... he’s OK because he can always get forgiveness later.... but a non-racist humanist is a sinner and doesn’t deserve to be happy regardless oh ow of how kinda and considerate he might be.

[Jdsizzleslice]

So a sinner is just someone who doesn’t believe... regardless of their actions and how they treat others.

So a Christian racist who goes out of his way to harm people of other races... he’s OK because he can always get forgiveness later.... but a non-racist humanist is a sinner and doesn’t deserve to be happy regardless oh ow of how kinda and considerate he might be.

One of the main tenets of Christianity is that every human being who has ever lived is a sinner except one: Jesus. Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not excuse their behavior if it is wrong behavior. A sinful nature is irrespective of what kind of a person you are: Christian or not. Christianity teaches that no one is perfect and holy except Jesus Christ.

People who have the viewpoint that they can do whatever they want and ask for forgiveness later ignore the true meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that you recognize you did something wrong, reconcile with other person who you have wronged, and change your actions as to not do it again. When you do something you know is wrong, and your motive is because you can "get" forgiveness later, it's not true reconciliation, and therefore not worthy of true forgiveness. It's just a self-justifying thought process that a person has convinced themselves of to do whatever they want.

[riskllama]

*tenets

[jimboston]

So a sinner is just someone who doesn’t believe... regardless of their actions and how they treat others.

So a Christian racist who goes out of his way to harm people of other races... he’s OK because he can always get forgiveness later.... but a non-racist humanist is a sinner and doesn’t deserve to be happy regardless oh ow of how kinda and considerate he might be.

One of the main tenets of Christianity is that every human being who has ever lived is a sinner except one: Jesus.

As a Recovering Catholic I’m aware of this.

Of course one would have to be Christian to accept these beliefs. The whole conversation is about proving stuff.

Furthermore, if you believe this and you believe what Doom said... which is basically “sinners don’t deserve happiness” then he’s basically saying “no one deserves happiness”. OK. That’s sad.

Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not excuse their behavior if it is wrong behavior. A sinful nature is irrespective of what kind of a person you are: Christian or not. Christianity teaches that no one is perfect and holy except Jesus Christ.

People who have the viewpoint that they can do whatever they want and ask for forgiveness later ignore the true meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that you recognize you did something wrong, reconcile with other person who you have wronged, and change your actions as to not do it again. When you do something you know is wrong, and your motive is because you can "get" forgiveness later, it's not true reconciliation, and therefore not worthy of true forgiveness. It's just a self-justifying thought process that a person has convinced themselves of to do whatever they want.

Boring and off point.

Also, there’s no requirement to reconcile with the person you wronged.... nor is there a requirement to change your actions.

The only requirement is that you are ‘truly sorry in your heart’. So yes, perpetrating a sin with the intent of falsely asking for forgive later wouldn’t work.... but you can repeat the same sin over and over so long as you recognize it’s wrong and try to resist.

[2dimes]

he’s basically saying “no one deserves happiness”. OK. That’s sad.

Everyone deserves to be happy as long as they are a citizen of the United States of America, say "no" to drugs, vote republican, have a degree, and work hard enough.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Of course one would have to be Christian to accept these beliefs. The whole conversation is about proving stuff.

Read my post here. What answers you are seeking depends on what kind of questions you are asking.

Furthermore, if you believe this and you believe what Doom said... which is basically “sinners don’t deserve happiness” then he’s basically saying “no one deserves happiness”. OK. That’s sad.

Except, that's not what he was saying though...

Boring and off point.

Well, you brought up forgiveness, so not sure how it's not on point...

Also, there’s no requirement to reconcile with the person you wronged.... nor is there a requirement to change your actions.

I disagree. Sure, you may or may not have the opportunity to confront the person to whom you have wronged, but you should inevitably try, right? But forgiveness does merit a change in action, or the sincerity behind the request for forgiveness is questionable. Repentance and reconciliation are two aspects of forgiveness that must be addressed.

The only requirement is that you are ‘truly sorry in your heart’. So yes, perpetrating a sin with the intent of falsely asking for forgive later wouldn’t work.... but you can repeat the same sin over and over so long as you recognize it’s wrong and try to resist.

If a wife cheats on her husband, and she admits what she does was wrong, and says that she will never cheat on him again, then there is more likely of a chance that he will forgiver her, and lead to working through the pain and hurt to save their marriage.

If she cheats on him a second time, and she admits what she does was wrong, and says that she will never cheat on him again, then was she really sorry in the first place? Being truly sorry for something is not equivalent to turning away from wrongdoing and committing yourself to never do it again. An action of repentance must take place. You and I both know that if your wife cheated on you twice, and she said she was truly sorry both times, you would say "BS" because her actions told you that she didn't value your marriage enough to not cheat on you, even though she said she was truly sorry. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

[jimboston]

Of course one would have to be Christian to accept these beliefs. The whole conversation is about proving stuff.

Read my post here. What answers you are seeking depends on what kind of questions you are asking.

I am seeking to have Doom answer the question that I asked him... but he won’t.

Furthermore, if you believe this and you believe what Doom said... which is basically “sinners don’t deserve happiness” then he’s basically saying “no one deserves happiness”. OK. That’s sad.

Except, that's not what he was saying though...

When you combine what he said, and what you said, that’s the result.

If you can’t follow that logic then I can’t help you.

Boring and off point.

Well, you brought up forgiveness, so not sure how it's not on point...

Because you are interjecting yourself into a conversation and you are dragging the conversation to areas that I find to be boring.

Also, there’s no requirement to reconcile with the person you wronged.... nor is there a requirement to change your actions.

I disagree. Sure, you may or may not have the opportunity to confront the person to whom you have wronged, but you should inevitably try, right? But forgiveness does merit a change in action, or the sincerity behind the request for forgiveness is questionable. Repentance and reconciliation are two aspects of forgiveness that must be addressed.

Of course you disagree... because that’s your nature, to be disagreeable.

Forgiveness doesn’t really require a change in action permanently... only temporarily.

The man gets drunk, beats his wife, feels bad... goes to his priest, asks for forgiveness and truly wants to be better. He’s forgiven.

A month later he loses a bet, so he gets drunk, beats his wife, feels bad... when he goes to the priest the next day, is the priest going to refuse to forgive him? No. Obviously different sects of Christianity work this differently, but in the Catholic faith he will be forgiven each and every time. He’s getting into heaven so long as it’s after he goes to the priest and before he beats his wife again.

The only requirement is that you are ‘truly sorry in your heart’. So yes, perpetrating a sin with the intent of falsely asking for forgive later wouldn’t work.... but you can repeat the same sin over and over so long as you recognize it’s wrong and try to resist.

If a wife cheats on her husband, and she admits what she does was wrong, and says that she will never cheat on him again, then there is more likely of a chance that he will forgiver her, and lead to working through the pain and hurt to save their marriage.

If she cheats on him a second time, and she admits what she does was wrong, and says that she will never cheat on him again, then was she really sorry in the first place? Being truly sorry for something is not equivalent to turning away from wrongdoing and committing yourself to never do it again. An action of repentance must take place. You and I both know that if your wife cheated on you twice, and she said she was truly sorry both times, you would say "BS" because her actions told you that she didn't value your marriage enough to not cheat on you, even though she said she was truly sorry. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

You are asking wether I or another person will accept and forgive.... that’s not the same as asking whether God or “the Church” will forgive.
These are not equivalent... and the only one that matters in regards to getting into Heaven is the God/Church one.

Just because YOU don’t forgive your wife after she cuckold’s you and feels bad, doesn’t mean God won’t. Only God, or a duly authorized representative of the Catholic Faith, can forgive your sins

[Jdsizzleslice]

I am seeking to have Doom answer the question that I asked him... but he won’t.

You are trying to answer a philosophical question with a scientific answer.

When you combine what he said, and what you said, that’s the result.

If you can’t follow that logic then I can’t help you.

Your logic isn't there, Jim.

Because you are interjecting yourself into a conversation and you are dragging the conversation to areas that I find to be boring.

Boring is subjective only to yourself. Off point is incorrect, because you are the first person to mention the phrase.

Of course you disagree... because that’s your nature, to be disagreeable.

I agree and disagree with many a number of things posted on this forum. My nature is to seek the truth, not be agreeable or disagreeable.

Forgiveness doesn’t really require a change in action permanently... only temporarily.

Do you hold this viewpoint solely based off what Catholics believe?

The man gets drunk, beats his wife, feels bad... goes to his priest, asks for forgiveness and truly wants to be better. He’s forgiven.

A month later he loses a bet, so he gets drunk, beats his wife, feels bad... when he goes to the priest the next day, is the priest going to refuse to forgive him? No. Obviously different sects of Christianity work this differently, but in the Catholic faith he will be forgiven each and every time. He’s getting into heaven so long as it’s after he goes to the priest and before he beats his wife again.

The above scenario is not true forgiveness, true repentance, or true reconciliation. It instead follows a thought pattern of justification for one's actions. Catholicism and Protestantism are not the same ideologically, although similar in some areas.

The Catholic Priest may forgive him for his sins, but does God forgive the sins of those who refuse to repent?

We may disagree on how forgiveness is carried out but let's get to the root to the philosophical meaning and intent of what a true representation of forgiveness actually means. Do you agree or disagree that intent important when discussing forgiveness or reconciliation?

You are asking wether I or another person will accept and forgive.... that’s not the same as asking whether God or “the Church” will forgive.
These are not equivalent... and the only one that matters in regards to getting into Heaven is the God/Church one.

I agree that people forgiving each other and God forgiving a person are two different things. But according to what the Bible says, God forgives those who are sincere in admitting they are a sinful person and change their actions to not repeat the sin they have in their lives. The intent is the main focal point here, Jim, not the words themselves that someone says.

Just because YOU don’t forgive your wife after she cuckold’s you and feels bad, doesn’t mean God won’t. Only God, or a duly authorized representative of the Catholic Faith, can forgive your sins

I disagree. No man has the authority to forgive sins; only God does.

[jimboston]

I am seeking to have Doom answer the question that I asked him... but he won’t.

You are trying to answer a philosophical question with a scientific answer.

Wrong... it’s a just question... and he can give any answer that makes sense.
He won’t answer it.

When you combine what he said, and what you said, that’s the result.

If you can’t follow that logic then I can’t help you.

Your logic isn't there, Jim.

Wrong... it’s there, you can’t follow it.
It;s not even very complicated.

Because you are interjecting yourself into a conversation and you are dragging the conversation to areas that I find to be boring.

Boring is subjective only to yourself. Off point is incorrect, because you are the first person to mention the phrase.

You’re right it’s subjective, and I find it boring, so I’m not interested in digging into whatever baloney you typed.

It was however definitely off-topic, or at least such a tangent as to be almost a different subject entirely.

Of course you disagree... because that’s your nature, to be disagreeable.

I agree and disagree with many a number of things posted on this forum. My nature is to seek the truth, not be agreeable or disagreeable.

Your nature is to be disagreeable,

Calling you a “truth-seeker” is an outright lie... you only like ‘truths’ that fit into your pre-existing worldview.

Forgiveness doesn’t really require a change in action permanently... only temporarily.

Do you hold this viewpoint solely based off what Catholics believe?

No. I use Catholicism from which to pull my examples, as I am more familiar with their doctrine.
The process of heavenly forgiveness is different for every religion, but most Christian sects would agree;.

Furthermore, I stress we were/are talking about forgiveness in the eyes of God. Not Earthly forgiveness.

The man gets drunk, beats his wife, feels bad... goes to his priest, asks for forgiveness and truly wants to be better. He’s forgiven.

A month later he loses a bet, so he gets drunk, beats his wife, feels bad... when he goes to the priest the next day, is the priest going to refuse to forgive him? No. Obviously different sects of Christianity work this differently, but in the Catholic faith he will be forgiven each and every time. He’s getting into heaven so long as it’s after he goes to the priest and before he beats his wife again.

The above scenario is not true forgiveness, true repentance, or true reconciliation. It instead follows a thought pattern of justification for one's actions. Catholicism and Protestantism are not the same ideologically, although similar in some areas.

The Catholic Priest may forgive him for his sins, but does God forgive the sins of those who refuse to repent?

We may disagree on how forgiveness is carried out but let's get to the root to the philosophical meaning and intent of what a true representation of forgiveness actually means. Do you agree or disagree that intent important when discussing forgiveness or reconciliation?

Yes... and in my scenario the husband is “truly” sorry. I wrote that into the story. As he is repenting the sin of beating his wife, he is truly feeling bad and truly sorry. He truly intends to stop and be better. He even keeps that promise to himself and God for a whole month!

Then something bad happens, and he drinks again, and he beats his wife again... it hey... he really is truly sorry.

You are asking wether I or another person will accept and forgive.... that’s not the same as asking whether God or “the Church” will forgive.
These are not equivalent... and the only one that matters in regards to getting into Heaven is the God/Church one.

I agree that people forgiving each other and God forgiving a person are two different things. But according to what the Bible says, God forgives those who are sincere in admitting they are a sinful person and change their actions to not repeat the sin they have in their lives. The intent is the main focal point here, Jim, not the words themselves that someone says.

Where does it say that? Where does it say “no repetition’ is allowed?

The Bible is full of stories where people repeat their sins.

It says NOTHING about not repeating.

You only have to be truly sorry and INTEND to not repeat.

Just because YOU don’t forgive your wife after she cuckold’s you and feels bad, doesn’t mean God won’t. Only God, or a duly authorized representative of the Catholic Faith, can forgive your sins

I disagree. No man has the authority to forgive sins; only God does.

You are free to disagree... of course you are disagreeing with the Pope. So obviously you ain’t Catholic.

I added that part as a joke... because the whole idea of submitting to a man made bureaucracy for Heavenly Forgiveness of sins is kinda ridiculous... but THAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I’m not saying I agree with it... but it’s what they say and believe.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Wrong... it’s a just question... and he can give any answer that makes sense.
He won’t answer it.

Wrong... it’s there, you can’t follow it.
It;s not even very complicated.

You’re right it’s subjective, and I find it boring, so I’m not interested in digging into whatever baloney you typed.

It was however definitely off-topic, or at least such a tangent as to be almost a different subject entirely.

Your nature is to be disagreeable, Calling you a “truth-seeker” is an outright lie... you only like ‘truths’ that fit into your pre-existing worldview.

Is it really the world versus Jim here? I don't think 99% of people here on this forum could say anything to which you would not insult them, demean, or call them a lair.

I am not against you as a person, Jim. That may be hard for you believe. There many things which we disagree about, but I don't even think we can have a conversation. My opinion is that you think I am just trying to disagree with everything you say in order to win an argument (or you think I am evil). That is not my goal. My goal is to better understand your position and talk about things that are factual, or discuss philosophical standpoints from a different view.

Why do you think we are unable to have a reasonable conversation about anything?

The process of heavenly forgiveness is different for every religion, but most Christian sects would agree;. Furthermore, I stress we were/are talking about forgiveness in the eyes of God. Not Earthly forgiveness.

I agree that we are mainly talking about forgiveness in the eyes of God. That doesn't change what I was saying. Protestantism does not teach that forgiveness does not require change.

Yes... and in my scenario the husband is “truly” sorry. I wrote that into the story. As he is repenting the sin of beating his wife, he is truly feeling bad and truly sorry. He truly intends to stop and be better. He even keeps that promise to himself and God for a whole month!

Then something bad happens, and he drinks again, and he beats his wife again... it hey... he really is truly sorry.

Well, that's my point. Just saying you're sorry or feeling sorry doesn't mean much. Changing your actions to own you did something wrong does mean a lot.

Where does it say that? Where does it say “no repetition’ is allowed?

The Bible is full of stories where people repeat their sins.

It says NOTHING about not repeating.

You only have to be truly sorry and INTEND to not repeat.

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

I understand what you are trying to say. I agree intent is definitely important, but actions are more important. You can intent not to commit a sin but still do it anyways. Just because you intended not to do something does not justify the action.

I do think, however, that there is progression regarding intent and action. As humans, we are imperfect beings, and of course we will do things wrong from time to time, even the same wrong thing multiple times. An individual who intends to get rid of some of the sin in their life needs to have visible actions, like working toward a goal, to change their wrongdoings. In your example that you came up with, if the husband who beats his wife recognizes his wrongdoing and commits himself to not beat her again, but then a month later beats her again, then his actions directly contradict his intent, showing he was not sincere in wanting to change his ways. If he says he won't do it anymore, and doesn't do it anymore, then his actions match his intent, and that shows he was sincere in wanting to change his ways.

You are free to disagree... of course you are disagreeing with the Pope. So obviously you ain’t Catholic.

I added that part as a joke... because the whole idea of submitting to a man made bureaucracy for Heavenly Forgiveness of sins is kinda ridiculous... but THAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I’m not saying I agree with it... but it’s what they say and believe.

Right, and I agree. We should not submit to man for forgiveness. We should submit to God himself.

[riskllama]

*liar...

[jimboston]

Why do you think we are unable to have a reasonable conversation about anything?

... because you often refuse to acknowledge factual point made, nd either have tried to manipulate my words or completely ignore the point when it disagrees with your existing world view.

The process of heavenly forgiveness is different for every religion, but most Christian sects would agree;. Furthermore, I stress we were/are talking about forgiveness in the eyes of God. Not Earthly forgiveness.

I agree that we are mainly talking about forgiveness in the eyes of God. That doesn't change what I was saying. Protestantism does not teach that forgiveness does not require change.

I KNOW Catholicism doesn’t require change.

I BELIEVE this would be true of most Protestant sects.

They require the sinner to be truly sorry, and they require the sinner to be honest in their attempt to change... but I don’t think ACTUAL CHANGED BEHAVIOR is a requirement for any forgiveness.

I think my example proves this... but let’s use your example...

Using your example... your wife cuckolds you, and fucks the mailman. She asks for forgiveness and you accept, and you go to counseling. Years later, she cuckolds you again (because let’s face it... you just aren’t delivering the goods). She asks for forgiveness, you refuse to accept and you get divorced.

She repents again to God and asks for forgiveness in her treatment of you. If in her heart she is sorry, He will forgive her, No?

... but she can never cheat on you again... and last time she had the opportunity to cheat she took it... so she never really changed her behavior... yet God will forgive because she’s sorry in her heart. If she remarries and cheats on him... would that invalidate her prior confession and forgiveness? I don’t see how.

Where does it say that? Where does it say “no repetition’ is allowed?

The Bible is full of stories where people repeat their sins.

It says NOTHING about not repeating.

You only have to be truly sorry and INTEND to not repeat.

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

I understand what you are trying to say. I agree intent is definitely important, but actions are more important. You can intent not to commit a sin but still do it anyways. Just because you intended not to do something does not justify the action.

He doesn’t say “sin no more... but if you make another mistake it’s Hell for you”. He wants her to go forth and be free of sin... but His capacity to Gorgive is bottomless no?

I do think, however, that there is progression regarding intent and action. As humans, we are imperfect beings, and of course we will do things wrong from time to time, even the same wrong thing multiple times. An individual who intends to get rid of some of the sin in their life needs to have visible actions, like working toward a goal, to change their wrongdoings. In your example that you came up with, if the husband who beats his wife recognizes his wrongdoing and commits himself to not beat her again, but then a month later beats her again, then his actions directly contradict his intent, showing he was not sincere in wanting to change his ways. If he says he won't do it anymore, and doesn't do it anymore, then his actions match his intent, and that shows he was sincere in wanting to change his ways.

You just contradicted yourself.

You are free to disagree... of course you are disagreeing with the Pope. So obviously you ain’t Catholic.

I added that part as a joke... because the whole idea of submitting to a man made bureaucracy for Heavenly Forgiveness of sins is kinda ridiculous... but THAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I’m not saying I agree with it... but it’s what they say and believe.

Right, and I agree. We should not submit to man for forgiveness. We should submit to God himself.

I’ll submit to God when he presents Himself to me... till then allI see are old white men in robes telling me what to do, but not practicing what they preach. This is true now in the 21st Century... and it’s been that way for about as long as we have records of organized religion.

[riskllama]

[Jdsizzleslice]

... because you often refuse to acknowledge factual point made, nd either have tried to manipulate my words or completely ignore the point when it disagrees with your existing world view.

Can you provide an example?

I KNOW Catholicism doesn’t require change.

I BELIEVE this would be true of most Protestant sects.

Which Protestant sects believe this?

They require the sinner to be truly sorry, and they require the sinner to be honest in their attempt to change... but I don’t think ACTUAL CHANGED BEHAVIOR is a requirement for any forgiveness.

Changed behavior is how you judge honest intent to change. If one's behavior changes, you know that their intent is to change. If their behavior does not, then you know their intent has not changed.

I think my example proves this... but let’s use your example...

Using your example... your wife cuckolds you, and fucks the mailman. She asks for forgiveness and you accept, and you go to counseling. Years later, she cuckolds you again (because let’s face it... you just aren’t delivering the goods). She asks for forgiveness, you refuse to accept and you get divorced.

She repents again to God and asks for forgiveness in her treatment of you. If in her heart she is sorry, He will forgive her, No?

... but she can never cheat on you again... and last time she had the opportunity to cheat she took it... so she never really changed her behavior... yet God will forgive because she’s sorry in her heart. If she remarries and cheats on him... would that invalidate her prior confession and forgiveness? I don’t see how.

Remember, we are talking about forgiveness from a deistic sense, right? That changed behavior most come from within the individual and expressed toward God, not necessarily another human being.

He doesn’t say “sin no more... but if you make another mistake it’s Hell for you”. He wants her to go forth and be free of sin... but His capacity to Gorgive is bottomless no?

He says this to her knowing that she was a human being, who is flawed in nature. He knew she would do wrong again at some point in her life. She was brought to the Pharisees because she had been caught having an affair. I agree, God's capacity to forgive is bottomless, and He offers that forgiveness to those who admit they are a sinner, believe Jesus died and rose again, and change their sinful ways. He offers this knowing we are not perfect beings, and knowing we will constantly mess up. Forgiveness for sins manifests itself with a call to action: to try to live as Christ lived, by words, intent, and actions.

You just contradicted yourself.

Can you explain how I contradicted myself? A path to corrective action can be a progressive step. You judge someone's actions to see whether or not they are wanting to change or not.

I’ll submit to God when he presents Himself to me... till then allI see are old white men in robes telling me what to do, but not practicing what they preach. This is true now in the 21st Century... and it’s been that way for about as long as we have records of organized religion.

Right, this goes back to one of the first initial posts I made, where I explain the difference between that which exists in the physical world and that which exists in the world of the mind. You require in your statement that an answer to your philosophical question to be responded to in a scientific answer. There is a contradiction there. This is what I and DY (I think) have been trying to explain.

[jimboston]

They require the sinner to be truly sorry, and they require the sinner to be honest in their attempt to change... but I don’t think ACTUAL CHANGED BEHAVIOR is a requirement for any forgiveness.

Changed behavior is how you judge honest intent to change. If one's behavior changes, you know that their intent is to change. If their behavior does not, then you know their intent has not changed.

At the time you are seeking and getting forgiveness you believe your behavior will change... the person offering forgiveness doesn’t know what your future behavior will be. Maybe God does... then we get into this whole predestination vs. free will debate (because you can’t have both).

So you have a crystal ball?

I think my example proves this... but let’s use your example...

Using your example... your wife cuckolds you, and fucks the mailman. She asks for forgiveness and you accept, and you go to counseling. Years later, she cuckolds you again (because let’s face it... you just aren’t delivering the goods). She asks for forgiveness, you refuse to accept and you get divorced.

She repents again to God and asks for forgiveness in her treatment of you. If in her heart she is sorry, He will forgive her, No?

... but she can never cheat on you again... and last time she had the opportunity to cheat she took it... so she never really changed her behavior... yet God will forgive because she’s sorry in her heart. If she remarries and cheats on him... would that invalidate her prior confession and forgiveness? I don’t see how.

Remember, we are talking about forgiveness from a deistic sense, right? That changed behavior most come from within the individual and expressed toward God, not necessarily another human being.

That’s avoiding the point.

He doesn’t say “sin no more... but if you make another mistake it’s Hell for you”. He wants her to go forth and be free of sin... but His capacity to Gorgive is bottomless no?

He says this to her knowing that she was a human being, who is flawed in nature. He knew she would do wrong again at some point in her life. She was brought to the Pharisees because she had been caught having an affair. I agree, God's capacity to forgive is bottomless, and He offers that forgiveness to those who admit they are a sinner, believe Jesus died and rose again, and change their sinful ways. He offers this knowing we are not perfect beings, and knowing we will constantly mess up. Forgiveness for sins manifests itself with a call to action: to try to live as Christ lived, by words, intent, and actions.

This collection of words is meaningless... unless you’re already a believer.

Even then it’s missing the point.

You just contradicted yourself.

Can you explain how I contradicted myself? A path to corrective action can be a progressive step. You judge someone's actions to see whether or not they are wanting to change or not.

You did it again. ‘He forgives her even though he knows she will sin again.’

I’ll submit to God when he presents Himself to me... till then allI see are old white men in robes telling me what to do, but not practicing what they preach. This is true now in the 21st Century... and it’s been that way for about as long as we have records of organized religion.

Right, this goes back to one of the first initial posts I made, where I explain the difference between that which exists in the physical world and that which exists in the world of the mind. You require in your statement that an answer to your philosophical question to be responded to in a scientific answer. There is a contradiction there. This is what I and DY (I think) have been trying to explain.

Yes... but you are using a Book written by MEN as a guide to explaining this to me. A book that is full of contradictions.

So do you believe every word in that book or just some? Which version? Your faith is based on a physical manifestation of this supposed philosophy... and ultimately rests on an unprovable belief. I can’t prove this belief false... nor can you prove it to be true. It requires a belief... based on what? You call it faith... but in reality it is based on a book written by men

[HitRed]

I’ll submit to God when he presents Himself to me

That's an interesting line. Let me know how that turns out.

[DoomYoshi]

Hey jb, I didn't want to get into a pissing match with you.

May God bless you and soften your heart.