The most irksome part of Christianity to me is this...those Christians whose philosophy is, "I was born a sinner, so thank heavens for Jesus." And preach the gospel whenever it's convenient for them, but make no effort to become better Christians other than religiously being seen in the pews praying.
-
-
I try to grow each day in not committing the vices that prevent me from being the best version of myself. I do some things I find "worthless" and I want to be diligent in not doing worthless things and wasting time.
Each day is an opportunity for growth in maturity on many levels.
I like your avatar.
-
Thanks. Well, I think everyone ought to know by now that you're a spiritually devoted person, Ill Duce.
I have a major problem with the idea that one could be born harmless and never profess faith and not be saved and that others who profess faith but love their sin will be saved.
I believe the only sin is the belief in separation from God. The whole "He died for our sins" trope is just a pitiful excuse not to make an effort to change. This whole teaching that all fall below but Jesus is totally counterproductive. Positing that the only hope is Jesus... Then aren't his words just a token?
He kept talking about how to save yourself, how to save the world. The part he should have emphasized, believe that I died for your sins, to my knowledge, wasn't ever directly spoken by him.
And people profess that they're too corrupted by sin to follow his teachings. So why teach them?Comment
-
I agree that Jesus has died for our sins. This is why we must keep sinning. To honor his death. He died for us to sin.Comment
-
Sin is a human concept. I don't buy it. I adhere to morals without needing this religious dogma.
Unfortunately a lot of others don't, or at least to lesser extent. So it might have some use after all :PComment
-
You make me laugh, Tropical Breeze. You're hilarious.
Jessica It seems the whole world is subject to orhers' extreme, harsh daydreams. It just increases anxiety and hardship.
God is actually just bitchin.Comment
-
Deeming an certain action a sin just makes it more tempting.Comment
-
I think something like Kant's Categorical Imperative should be adopted as the outline for social morality.
The OP and Din Djarin 's post essentially address why I think religious morality is not very effective when applied to society at large. Furthermore, there are various faiths and most all of them seem to have integral parts which make morality contingent on aspects of the faith that are not necessarily the moral code in-and-of-itself. I believe this is why issues like being Entitled to Sin arise.
The popular secular alternative at present seems to be moral relativism and I find that problematic because if there is no true foundation for morality, then morals essentially become arbitrary and that seems ripe for contradictions, discrimination and inconsistencies.
Kant suggested that morality can be arrived at rationally and he was still able to retain maxims that effectively echo stuff like The Golden Rule and some of the more self evident aspects of faith based morality. Even if we were to subscribe to a Categorical Imperative, I think people could still derive morals from faith as well.
Perhaps some of Kant's ideas would need to be updated or changed for the sake of modernity but the central thesis of partitioning morality from all other paradigms/systems is appealing to me and I believe the most practical solution to provide a foundational moral compass for a world of increased interconnectivity.
Maybe society has already pushed and pulled in so many directions where something like that is a pipe dream but that's basically my ideal sentiment on the topic. I actually considered posting this in the Unpopular Opinions thread a couple weeks ago.Comment
-
And I'm too ignorant and obstinate to understand what Audiogen is saying.
I'm a simple man. Can it be taken for granted that it's right to care? Or that it's a lost cause for all civilized people not to, and useless to question it?Comment
Comment