03 Dec 15
Originally posted by 667joeAre you also then suggesting that if Mr Dear was not a Christian then he would not have committed the crime?
Of course Mr. Dear does not represent all Christians. Mr. Dear, however, unlike most Christians, took Christian doctrine to it's logical conclusion to excuse and justify his actions.
Christian doctrine states that if you believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven for your sins. Murder is a sin. If you believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven for murder. Mr. Dear therefore thought murder is OK. This is the doctrine of vicarious redemption which of course is totally immoral and this is what makes the Christianity dangerous. Again, only the person you sin against can forgive you, not a third party (Jesus).
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by 667joeWhat is this a warm up round!?
Christian doctrine states that if you believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven for your sins. Murder is a sin. If you believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven for murder. Mr. Dear therefore thought murder is OK. This is the doctrine of vicarious redemption which of course is totally immoral and this is what makes the Christianity dangerous. Again, only the person you sin against can forgive you, not a third party (Jesus).
Murder is called out in the Bible as wrong. Jesus never said it was OK to commit murder.
The Bible never once says "if you believe in Jesus you will be forgiven of your sins". This is complete bullshilt which you have either made up or have absorbed through some kind of Christian hate osmosis.
Your understanding of the Christian concept of redemption is not only wrong, it does not support your argument even if you were right.
You are also wrong on what Jesus said about forgiveness only coming from the party you sin against. Have you ever even read the Bible? How about the Lord's prayer??
You are fully entitled to your opinion but unfortunately for you yours is completely unsubstantiated in Biblical scripture and therefore hardly worth bothering with. I might equally claim "all science is dangerous because of Oppenheimer".
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by DeepThought
Which is why I think that strong atheism has to be part of a belief system, it can't contradict the various other beliefs an individual holds. Agnostics on the other hand don't need to fit a belief about whether there is a God into a belief system.
Which is why I think that strong atheism has to be part of a belief system, it can't contradict the various other beliefs an individual holds.
It can however be the result of the other beliefs that person holds.
Saying that strong atheism must be part of a belief system is like saying a belief in a spherical [ish]
Earth must be part of a belief system.
Or ANY other belief for that matter. Rendering the term belief systems totally and utterly meaningless.
And again, you can be an agnostic and a strong atheist.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by 667joeThere is more than one 'Christian doctrine', some Christians believe the things you are
No cognitive dissonance for you? Christian doctrine says you should not sin, but, unfortunately it goes further to say if you do sin and believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven and go to heaven.
talking about. But by no means all of them [or even most].
Telling people what their religion says, and what they believe, isn't going to get you very far.
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeDivegeester is making the same mistake. Some Christians believe what Joes opening post says. Dive is saying that there is no such doctrine in Christianity.
There is more than one 'Christian doctrine', some Christians believe the things you are
talking about. But by no means all of them [or even most].
Telling people what their religion says, and what they believe, isn't going to get you very far.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by Rajk999Indeed.
Divegeester is making the same mistake. Some Christians believe what Joes opening post says. Dive is saying that there is no such doctrine in Christianity.
One of the reasons I tend to go out of my way to point out that atheists only hold one thing
[beyond those things all humans have in common] in common, and can and do, disagree on
almost anything and everything else is because I know I can't speak for all atheists and if I
were to try I would rapidly get jumped on by those that disagree.
You just have to look at the epic thread fights between different Christians on this site to see
that you don't all agree. Then of course there are the centuries of conflict between different factions
which was indeed part of the reason for so many people to flee to America to escape such persecution
and that is again why the First Amendment was drafted to prevent such persecutions from continuing
in the newly formed USA.
03 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeYou are making unfounded assumptions which are based on something Mr. Dear once said to an ex-wife about being saved, allegedly (whatever it was). The danger here is typical of what happens on the internet, IMHO. He said she said, enough say... it becomes truth.
Of course Mr. Dear does not represent all Christians. Mr. Dear, however, unlike most Christians, took Christian doctrine to it's logical conclusion to excuse and justify his actions.
What is Christian doctrine's logical conclusion?
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by Rajk999To be clear.
Divegeester is making the same mistake. Some Christians believe what Joes opening post says. Dive is saying that there is no such doctrine in Christianity.
If a person confesses and repents of (this is more than lip service) their sin, the Bible says that "he is faithful to forgive us". Forgive means to also forget in scripture, as though it never happened. The cost was Christ's sacrifice.
It's also says that faith and repentance are god given/enabled. So no i don't believe that going out and murdering some one and then saying sorry is sufficient to be forgiven. God is not mocked. Also a scripture I believe. Repentance is a deep god enabled spiritual condition. Sincerity if you like.
What Joe is on about is one dimensional, erroneous and actually quite immature, from a spiritual perspective.
I don't know it all, but I know a weak argument when I see one and I'm afraid your one is weak Joe. With respect sparring buddy 🙂
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by yoctobyteIt is really shocking that you have not read on this forum that Christians like sonship and checkbaiter have constantly stated that it is their belief, that as soon as a man professes his faith in Christ with his mouth, he is saved eternally and can under no circumstances lose that eternal life. If the man sins all that he looses are whatever rewards that he may have accrued but his eternal life is intact and will one day enter the Kingdom of God.
You are making unfounded assumptions which are based on something Mr. Dear once said to an ex-wife about being saved, allegedly (whatever it was). The danger here is typical of what happens on the internet, IMHO. He said she said, enough say... it becomes truth.
What is Christian doctrine's logical conclusion?
03 Dec 15
Originally posted by divegeesterThere is a good reason why both sonship and checkbaiter have not posted in this thread... 😀
To be clear.
If a person confesses and repents of (this is more than lip service) their sin, the Bible says that "he is faithful to forgive us". Forgive means to also forget in scripture, as though it never happened. The cost was Christ's sacrifice.
It's also says that faith and repentance are god given/enabled. So no i don't believe that going ...[text shortened]... weak argument when I see one and I'm afraid your one is weak Joe. With respect sparring buddy 🙂
03 Dec 15
2 edits
Originally posted by 667joeIt should lead to no more cognitive dissonance for a Christian than it does for an atheist. I too believe that I should not do most things Christians would regard as sin, and I too believe that there are no consequences for me after death.
No cognitive dissonance for you? Christian doctrine says you should not sin, but, unfortunately it goes further to say if you do sin and believe in Jesus, you will be forgiven and go to heaven.
I actually think that the nicest interpretation (not necessarily the one he intended) of Jesus' message is that one should behave well because that is the right thing to do and not because the rules tell you to do so or because of fear of punishment. That is certainly my own philosophy in life for which I did not require religious doctrine. I am of course hardly unique in holding that philosophy.
03 Dec 15
1 edit
I think the real question for Mr Dear is why he would commit murder to prevent murder. You can't really have it both ways and claim one is OK and the other is not. It is possible he saw it as the lesser of two evils (a reasonable position to take. I would have no issues murdering a Nazi prison guard for example.)