Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism, a dangerous idea?
iano
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 13 of 241 (328100)
07-01-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CK
07-01-2006 6:26 PM


It's like smoking and rock and roll - they know that it's our secret way to bed all those christian girls.
You didn't fall for THAT old line did you? "I'm a Christian"
Sheesh CK.
There's one born every minute
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 6:26 PM CK has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 121 of 241 (328880)
07-05-2006 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by kongstad
07-05-2006 3:33 AM


Re: An Argument and explanation
A christian would know that being just and not sinning would not help him achieve grace - so there is no reason for a christian - that is one who believes in the risen christ - to act morally.
In his exposition of the need for and mechanics of the Gospel, Paul in Romans, deals with a couple of natural objections that will be raised by someone who hears the gospel message of salvation by Gods grace only (man cannot do anything to enable his salvation like you have been told).
One objection is "what about the law?" The gospel does away with any notion that a man can be saved through his adherance to the law. You see that argued against frequently enough here. Such argument requires insertion of ideas not contained within the gospel. For instance, Jesus commands: "do", "don't do" have the words "try to/try not to" inserted on front of them. For all would accept that one cannot obey these commands all the time thus "try to" must be the intention. But that is gospel-in-my-own-image-and-likeness territory.
The other of the few objections that can be raised by the gospel of grace is "sure, that means I can do anything I like at all and still get into heaven". This is more or less what you are saying above. Paul has been expounding on the mechanism of salvation by faith and has talked about the assurance a Christian has of his destination (in Romans 4 and 5). Then the objection arises from Kongstad who has listened to this argument:
so there is no reason for a christian - that is one who believes in the risen christ - to act morally
At the start of Romans 6, Paul takes the place of you in posing this very objection to the gospel he is presenting:
quote:
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
The answer?
2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Did you see it? "Died to sin". Look at his indignation. "Don't you know what has happened to the person on being made a Christian - have you not been listening to what I have been saying?!!" A Christian is a person who does not share the natural mans mindset anymore. Whereas before, as a natural man, he was an enemy of God (said Paul earlier) now he is a son of God. He occupies a different place. He has been adopted. This is not to say a Christian will not sin - he will. Desparately at times. But it disturbs him, he dislikes it, he wishes he didn't and takes steps to avoid sinning.
A Christian has a very good reason to act morally (although that is not to say he will). Not to ensure his salvation - for that is certain. A Christian has come fully to see the ugliness of sin, the complete and utter depravity of all sin. Any sin. He has come to detest sin.
There is no stronger motivation to act morally than for a person to detest sin. In comparison, the law or threats of the law are no match at all. As we all well know...
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by kongstad, posted 07-05-2006 3:33 AM kongstad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by kongstad, posted 07-09-2006 10:19 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 125 of 241 (328895)
07-05-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by robinrohan
07-05-2006 8:04 AM


Re: I believe
Like a moral code that involves killing people who you think are immoral for example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by robinrohan, posted 07-05-2006 8:04 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 07-05-2006 8:10 AM iano has replied
 Message 128 by nwr, posted 07-05-2006 8:38 AM iano has replied
 Message 139 by ramoss, posted 07-05-2006 2:14 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 127 of 241 (328899)
07-05-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by robinrohan
07-05-2006 8:10 AM


Re: I believe
One code is as valid as another, logically speaking.
As I understand it 'logical' is as open to discussion as are 'morals'so you might be threading on thin ice there RR.
Insanity, insanity - all is insanity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 07-05-2006 8:10 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 129 of 241 (328904)
07-05-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by nwr
07-05-2006 8:38 AM


Re: I believe
Actually it wasn't intended as a comment on capital punishment. I was drawing out the extent to which "any moral code at all" can be considered as valid and logical as any other - irrespective of which adjectives-unto-objective-evaluation we might attach them.
I might just have easily been pointing to the moral which permits a burglar to kill the homeowner who disturbs his burgling. The burglar might hold the homeowner to be immoral for wanting to consider property absolutely his up to the point of preventing someone taking it. The moral at work there would be "survival of the fittest"
I suspected Robin would agree with me. And he does.
Just drawing out, thats all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by nwr, posted 07-05-2006 8:38 AM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024