1. Are there people of a religious persuasion who use their faith to absolve themselves of personal responsibility?
Of course there are. And, as been amply demonstrated, the trait is by no means restricted to religious people. It’s common to people of all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, etc.
2. Does Christianity preach personal responsibility?
It is difficult to speak of Christianity as a whole, because specific bits of doctrine may vary considerably from one sect to the next. However, among the major denominations, I would argue that personal responsibility is hugely important. One is expected to embrace the concept that one will be held accountable for one’s actions by a higher power, and depending upon the holy verdict be rewarded or punished for all eternity. If that’s not taking personal responsibility, I don’t know what is.
3. Does the doctrine of redemption through Christ carry the message that future sins are already forgiven?
This question is at the heart of the millennia-old debate on the nature of Free Will vs. Predestination. There may very well be Christian denominations that promote this interpretation. The Catholic Church (the only denomination I feel even vaguely qualified to discuss) teaches that Man has the freedom to choose between what is right and what is wrong (cite). Penance for one’s sins comes in two forms – internal and external. Internal penance is the conscious understanding that one has done wrong and the deliberate decision to change oneself for the better. External penance is the evidence – in thought, word, or deed – that one has lived up to this promise. The former is given the greater emphasis because actions (even praiseworthy actions) are not necessarily signs of contrition. They must be done for the right reasons (cite). As far as those who treat the Sacrament of Reconciliation as a revolving door license to sin – I think that the most rudimentary examination of Catholic doctrine will demonstrate that a confession offered thus is null and void. Absent a genuine desire for forgiveness and a resolve to do better, there is no forgiveness.
4. Did Jesus die to save us from all of our sins?
If I understand correctly, this question confuses two separate issues. Catholic doctrine teaches 1) that Jesus’ death and resurrection saved man from original sin; and 2) Jesus is the power in heaven that grants men absolution from their own sins (cite). Therefore, He did not die for all of our sins.
Some, as I mentioned a time or two. (Or perhaps I need to put it SOME, since we are now resorting to argument by capitalization.) Namely, the eternal ones. Not the temporal ones.
See, there are two (2) sets of consequences for sin. One (1) is eternal - hell, in other words. This is the one Jesus died to save us from - hence the term “Savior”, meaning “one who saves”.
There is another set of consequences. These are called “temporal”. They include things like paying back money you stole, apologizing for things you did, things like that. They can also include things like lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes, going to prison if you shoot someone, and so forth.
Jesus doesn’t allow us to escape temporal consequences. If you steal a car, you can repent but you still have to give back the car. You can repent and be saved, but then you are not allowed to go on sinning. That was the point of the quote I cited above, where Jesus explained how to behave after repenting.
So you see, for any of the consequences that you would recognize as being real, Christians do not teach that they can or should evade responsibility for them by repenting.
Ok. So the consequences of sin include going to hell. Christians dump this consequence onto Jesus, therefore they are not paying the consequences for their sin. This is the opposite of personal responsibility. For example, when I was a kid, and I broke a neighbor’s window, my dad paid for it. Was that me accepting personal responsibility? No. So, when you sin, and Jesus pays for it, that is not accepting personal responsibility.
Conceded. So what? Jesus still pays the eternal consequences. And the question that remains unanswered, still trying to dig itself out from the mountain of nitpicking and semantics, is with Jesus paying consequences for something you did, how can you honestly claim that christianity is “big on personal responsibility”? (Yes, I know that was originally mswas’s argument, but you stepped in to defend it.)
I never said that religion was not responsible for anything bad. In this case, the person who blames others for his own actions has somewhat of a narcissistic personality disorder… it has nothing to do with the religion.
And I disagree with you that faultless behavior is the norm due to religion.
So there are consequences that one does not escape, and for which (therefore) one must take responsibility.
Because we assert that we cannot escape the temporal consequence of our sin, for which we are personally responsible.
Those temporal consequences are the only ones you would recognize as real. Therefore, by your definition, Christianity does not teach that we may escape the real consequences of our sins.
I gave a direct answer to your question. Please provide an equally direct answer in return. Do you believe that Christianity teaches that we can escape all OR SOME of the consequences of our sins?
I will agree that, with allowance given for the wide variety of beliefs that are labeled “christian,” it is not generally taught that you are immune from temporal consequences.
However, to expand upon my previous example, if I broke a window worth $50 as a child, and my dad made me pay $1 and he paid $49, would you then say that I was made to take personal responsibility? Perhaps, because I did suffer some consequences. Would you be able to make the argument that my dad was “big on personal responsibility”? No, I don’t think so. Temporal consequences, to christians, are so minor compared to the eternal ones that they’re barely on the radar. So, having to pay some temporary, extremely minor consequences like returning a car you stole or saying “sorry,” while Jesus pays the consequence of suffering in hell for eternity, is like me paying $1 while my dad pays $49. Hardly “big on personal responsibility.”
You earlier requested evidence that christians believe that they do not have to pay temporal consequences. I have received mountains of evidence of this over the years, but you have stated that you will not accept anecdotes, so I doubt you would be interested.
You’re correct; I would like actual evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data, and all that.
For someone given to excitability when he thinks others are making statements for which they have no evidence, Der Trihs seems surprisingly shy about backing up some of his own.
Ok… meddlesome me. Have you read the book of James? Maybe certain parts of Romans (where faith and deeds are discussed)?
There are some parts of the Bible that basically say, sure, turn to Jesus, but if you have REAL faith you’ll do more than talk the talk; you’ll walk the walk.
What “hard evidence” ? Either way ? I’m not aware of anyone bothering to do a study ( naturally, since it would no doubt make religion look bad ). Until I see such a study, all I can go by is what I see - which are people using religion right and left to evade responsibility. Or, accepting responsibility for things that aren’t their fault, or aren’t faults at all.
We have people engaging in medical fraud ( faith healing ) without punishment, getting absolved of sins as mentioned in this thread, the standard spectacle of the caught criminal saying they’ve found Jesus, so don’t punish them; people like James Watt justifying destroying the environment with religion, and so on. We have people thanking God instead of rescue workers and doctors. Consistently, I see a near-complete disconnect between actual responsibility and whoever/whatever gets the blame or credit, where religion is involved.
Y’know how there are certain people out there that obviously have helped you form your two dimensional portrait of religion? People who just don’t listen? Refuse to engage in honest, adult conversation?
You do that for atheism.
While I agree that people with religious beliefs tend to miss the more natural causes of things, so do atheists.
If you want to be a voice of reason - can you at least decide to play fair? I’ve already been railed against once because someone has obviously informed their opinion of an atheist from your “approach.”
As an aside: I DO see this post as germane to the ongoing discussion. Else I would add to the ongoing pit thread.
Why yes, I have read the entire bible. Many times. Romans, you say? How about “All have sinned” and “The wages of sin is death.” Ring any bells? Both from Romans.
Do christians sin? According to Romans, yes. Do christians have to pay the “wages” of sin? No. Jesus pays the “wages” for them, even though he never sinned.
Consisting of what? Scientific studies? Studying what, exactly? We’re talking about peoples’ beliefs. How do you do a scientific study on peoples’ beliefs?
However, I do applaud your demand for evidence before you believe something. I’m sure you’re prepared to cite many scientific studies that back up your point of view on the topic, right?
I do like the entertainment though. To me, it just doesn’t get any better than when a christian asks me for evidence of something. The irony is just off the charts.
Sure, and all that love stuff in Romans, too. But you are trying to gloss over the fact that the book does make demands of people - if they want to feel that their faith is real.
I believe in my couch. I sit in it. A belief without action is dead, being alone. Same point.
I do get that Jesus removes the sin (in the thinking), but much of that guilt, imo, is manufactured anyhow. The guilt of being a homosexual? Not normal. Only religion or a few cultures could actually cause that. It’s not arrived at naturally, imo. I can’t provide a cite, no one can. Simple statement of opinion.
I’m not trying to gloss over anything. I readily admit to a lot of nice stuff in the bible, and even in Romans. Romans 14 in particular has some nice things to say about live and let live. But that’s not the point of this discussion. Regardless of whatever else christianity might represent, it is not correct to say that christianity is “big on personal responsibility” when christians get to dump all the consequences for their actions on Jesus.
Sure, they’re supposed to be nice to each other and love their neighbors and all that, and that’s great. But if they fail to do the nice things that they are commanded to do, they ultimately pay no penalty for it. There are no consequences for not loving your neighbor as yourself.
I do think of this… perhaps uniquely. I think religion tends to amp up the guilt, shame and mold making. Then when something doesn’t fit and the person feels the pinch, religion inserts a way of making the pinch less painful. The pinch is still there.
And I’d submit that people then return to the same state a reasonably well adjusted atheist would experience. Grief, coming to terms with what they did, etc. SOME religious people will just use the blanket once-saved-always-saved, but… if that’s the depth of their thinking with religion, why do we think they’ll be any deeper if religion were removed?
It’s like my thinking on atheism and religion. People are themselves - then we find excuses for why we are that way. Religion, philosophy, or whatever, gives us a reason to be snipey or rude, or kind or whatever - but generally those things present not a lot of persuasive power.
Except for some. Some are sincere. Some genuinely seek to do better, to be more “Christlike.” I don’t want them to be maligned for those idiots that DO engage in the shallower thinking.
Because religion twists people’s judgement. Because religion encourages and requires bad habits of thought; willful ignorance, self delusion, denial of evidence, dishonesty, disdain for facts, the basing of one’s opinion on fantasy and not reality. Remove religion, and they will likely think better about everything. They will have fewer motives for irrational behavior, and fewer excuses.
And really, it’s not a very good argument in defense of religion to argue for it’s selective irrelevancy. As I’ve said before, whenever the subject of people doing bad or stupid things comes up, suddenly religion has no effect on people’s behavior. When they do good things, that’s used as proof of how beneficial religion is.
Don’t Call Me Shirley I think the point of redemption through Christ is that there is nothing intractable that one cannot be forgiven for, even if one does something that cannot be undone. I don’t see it as an abdication of responsibility. Repentence is essential. If one is a murderer and asks forgiveness for being a murderer then goes out and murders some more, they aren’t exactly repentent. You also have to remember the historical context, it was a way out for traditional, ‘eye for an eye’ kind of stuff. But ultimately one has to sit at the day of judgment where Jesus tallies it all up.
Remember that, “WHATEVER YOU DID UNTO ONE OF THE LEAST,
YOU DID UNTO ME”, schtick? That implies that Jesus is going to consider any sort of sin or cruelty on your part to be a personal affront. Not that you can’t be forgiven, but that you must be truly repentant.
Christianity also argues that one will be known by their works? Do you agree that a person is known by what they do? If so, what have you done that shows us that your moral character justifies the moral authority you are taking with your tone here?
Also, don’t pull any ‘ad hominem’ here, you are standing on your own authority, so justify it based on your own authority. What habits have you inculcated that are so much better than religious habits?
What utter nonsense. If you see a christian trying to use christianity to avoid the consequences of something, that is enough evidence to state that some christians use christianity to avoid consequences. It’s not a scientific study, but it is valid.
In 10 years as a probation officer, I have received many many hundreds of letters from pastors, telling me that a criminal has recently converted to christianity and asking that as a result they not suffer consequences that they deserve. We have a chaplain at the jail that baptizes practically every idiot that he can get his hands on, and then he emails me to let me know that he just baptized the guy and asks me to cut them a break. Additionally, although I have not counted, I would bet that I have had more than a thousand people try to use their status as a “good christian” to avoid consequences (yes- even temporal consequences- gasp!).
So you are taking something that I see happen several times a week, and telling me it doesn’t happen, and demanding “evidence.” Well, I’m sorry, but I do not think I will be able to produce the kind of evidence that will satisfy you. Unfortunately, no semi-literate bronze-age goatherder ever wrote down anything about christians avoiding consequences, and apparently the delusional ramblings of bronze-age goatherders are the only thing that passes in your world as “evidence.” You know, like donkeys being able to see invisible angels and discussing it in perfect Hebrew; you have all the evidence you need to believe that. But, when I describe something I have seen happen thousands of times, that’s not “evidence.” Because it’s not “scientific.” I see.