Not if you are going to claim it’s the norm. For that, you need real evidence.
Let’s see it.
Regards,
Shodan
I never claimed it was the norm, talk to **DT **about that.
However, you have admitted that christianity does teach that christians are not held responsible for eternal consequences, and stated that since I do not believe in the eternal consequences, christians do have to take responsibility for the only consequences that are important to me. But, in the bible, it says that christians are not supposed to concern themselves with temporal things, but focus on things above (eternal things). So, by christianity’s definition, the temporal consequences are meaningless, and the only consequences that matter are the eternal ones. And you have admitted that christians don’t have to pay the eternal consequences. Therefore, using your own logic, christians get to dump the only real consequences onto Jesus, and don’t have to pay any meaningful consequences themselves. Pretty much the definition of not taking personal responsibility.
But by all means, keep demanding scientific evidence from me. You seem like a sharp guy, maybe the irony of a christian demanding scientific evidence for anything will eventually sink in.
True, and you have already mentioned that you have nothing beyond anecdotal evidence.
Essentially what you are saying is that from my point of view, we don’t need to worry about real consequences, but from yours, we do. And since you seem to be asserting that my ideas about consequence aren’t real, then you are correct, and we take responsibility for the only real consequences there are.
And Der Trihs - still waiting to hear your evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
But the evidence I have is sufficient to support my claim. I say that some christians try to use their christianity to get out of temporal consequences. I can think of at least three christians that did this to my face just this month, and hundreds of others that have done it over the years. And you admit that christians do not have to suffer eternal consequences, confirming my point.
And even if my evidence is not from a double blind scientific study, it beats the hell out of any evidence you’ve presented in support of your claim.
But this thread is about what christians believe, not about what I believe. Just because I know that your belief in eternal consequences is delusional doesn’t mean that that’s the typical christian belief. You believe what you believe, and act accordingly. The christian’s beliefs inform his actions, not the unrelated beliefs of some other person. Unless you’re saying that when you are considering a course of action you take my beliefs into consideration before you act.
Well, you responded to my refutation of Der Trihs’ claim that this was the norm.
To quote someone else, so what? The rest don’t, and this behavior is not endorsed by Christian teaching. So, this is not the norm, nor is it correct to state that this is characteristic of Christians.
You have found some exceptions, you think. So? Are you claiming that attempting to escape the consequences is more characteristic of the Christian converts among your clients than it is of the others? Do the others generally 'fess up and take their medicine?
Actually, I have presented cites from the defining document of Christianity in general, and the authoritative teachings of the Roman Catholic church. And, if you need more, I have known more Christians than you have handled clients as a parole officer, and none of them have ever suggested that they should be excused from the temporal consequences of their sins.
So there you go. Two cites establishing the teaching as the official position of Christianity, and at least as many anecdotes as you.
If you like, we can count the anecdotes as a wash. All you need is some cites showing that Christianity teaches that repentance should be expected to give exemption from the temporal consequences of sin.
And Der Trihs, I am still waiting.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, no I don’t. Showing that christianity teaches that one does not have to pay the eternal consequences for sin is enough to support my contention that christianity is not “big on personal responsibility.” The whole “temporal vs eternal” sideshow was just a mildly interesting verbal exercise with only minimal relevance to my point. I already conceded to you that christianity does not generally teach avoidance of temporal consequences. That small concession to you did not invalidate my main point, which you still will not address.
I’m blind to neither the good nor the bad. I’m non-dogmatic.
I’d submit (tongue in cheek and wondering if I’m going to get slapped) that I find your post ironic. Well… mainly that first and second sentence.
Religion doesn’t do anything. Dogma does. That’s my point.
So exactly how many angels did you fit on the head of that pin?
Let’s try this again. Christianity teaches that:
A. God is watching you. He knows everything you have ever thought, said, or done. When you screw up, He knows.
B. IF you are genuinely sorry for your misdeeds, God provides an agent (Jesus) through whom you may seek forgiveness. The restitution of your misdeeds is an essential part of that process.
C. Those sins you carry to your grave will be held against you at The Final Judgment, and you will be punished for them.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not a license to go forth and sin with impunity, anticipating future forgiveness.
Eliminate dogma, and you don’t have religion any more. Religion has no underlying basis of fact; it’s ALL dogma.
This is clearly Catholic teaching, with which I am completely unfamiliar. I wonder if you can provide a bible verse that says that if you carry a sin to the grave you will be punished for it. What is the punishment? Is that what purgatory is for?
You are making it a lot harder than it has to be.
Romans 6:23: The wages of sin is death…
John 11:26: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Get it? Christians don’t have to pay the wages of sin. Non-christians do.
So to review, if a non-christian sins, he has to be cast into a lake of fire where he will be horribly tortured beyond imagination for all eternity.
If a christian sins, he has to say he’s sorry. Oh, and he has to really mean it. (Oh noes!!! The horror!)
Trying to convince me that having to say you’re sorry means you’ve paid the consequences, when my consequences are going to be burning for eternity, is laughable.
The central teachings of Catholicism are based on two fundamental elements: revelation (scripture) and tradition (interpretation). Therefore, as with many other articles of faith, the doctrine of Purgatory did not spring directly from any single scriptural source, but developed over time. There are several references in the Bible to the idea that after death the soul undergoes purification, and that the prayers of the living may alleviate the suffering of those undergoing this cleansing. Here is one such passage.
I must confess that I don’t understand the nature of your objection here. Theology is not a simple topic, and the subtleties of the Catholic Cathechism were hammered out over millennia by some very keen minds. If, as you say, you are completely unfamiliar with Church doctrine, you really should not cry foul when someone points out to you that certain issues are not nearly as cut and dried as your limited exposure has led you to believe.
Sigh. You will find some branches of Christianity that persist in thinking along these lines. The Catholic Church has rejected it.
In other words, virtue and righteousness are not exclusive to the Church. Jesus is still taught to be the only source of salvation, but He does not confine His blessings to Christians.
Saying you’re sorry isn’t enough. A Christian who is genuinely sorry for the wrongs he’s committed has to *prove *it. See my post above.
Sometimes overzealousness with religion does cause those problems – or obsession with it does. Sometimes it can be a negative obsession, I think, that distorts reason. It can happen just as easily to people who are not at all religious.
I believe I have asked for a cite for this before, but I am uncertain. Would you back this up please?
When are we told this? I don’t hear this claim. Was it made it this thread? On this forum? On the Dope? Cite please.
Those words have nothing to do with psychology. Why would you refer to them as “psychobabble”? They have had real meaning for hundreds of years.
I believe that mswas’s OP to the I have decided to become an atheist (hypothetical) thread can be validly said to make this claim.
Psychosis is characterized by a loss of contact with reality and an inability to think rationally. Any claim about “eternal consequences,” or any claim about christianity for that matter, is by definition psychotic.