The primary motivation of my commenting anywhere is to hopefully influence someone, potentially a lurker, to give more thoughtful consideration to the claims of the gospel, the result, hopefully being their becoming a new adoptee in to my Father’s family and thus my fellow brother or sister and friend for eternity. ‘Hopefully’ is maybe redundant there, but that is what it’s all about, and it is not an empty hope based on wishful thinking, but a sure hope of future grace.*
There is the added motivation of loving obedience to a loving Father, because that is what we Christians have been told to do.
That latter may be a hangover from your Catholicism (not that all Catholics necessarily believe that). But that latter is also the gospel exactly backwards – Christians believe that their sin has been fully atoned for already by Jesus’ work on the cross, and that it is a free gift of grace totally undeserved to those who will receive it. (Note: it is not a license to be disobedient because it has already been covered, as some accuse and as Paul explicitly and emphatically denies, because that is evidence of a heart that does not love God, whose selfish desires have not been replaced and reborn.)
@patrick, I should also add something more. I’m pretty sure you think that if a good God did actually exist, he would find morally reprehensible things to be reprehensible, and perhaps even worthy of punishment of some sort.
Yes, I know that you don’t think God exists, good or evil. Still, if a good God existed, you would believe he would be justly concerned with “sin” in your conception of it.
Yes, I have secular morals, ethics, and values that are a product of the place and time that I live in, my upbringing and most importantly my reasoning. I am also a law abiding citizen. Sin is a religious construct. Sin isn’t analogous to anything in modern society and modern living. It boggles my mind how someone can believe that they can sin against an imaginary God.
Really? It’s it a sin and a crime in 40 countries to not believe that God exists. Belief in God’s existence is central to Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Not believing in God is a capital offence in 40 countries.
You absolutely should not be prosecuted for being an atheist. I totally disagree with presecution of athiests by the government where it happens. You are my neighbor, and I want a society that treats you well, even though we disagree about God.
It is morally wrong to disobey a loving father’s household and family rules for the wellbeing and happiness of all. Likewise a loving Father. The first and second greatest commandments are about love. So are the Ten, and all the additional exposition in the NT.
That is definitely not to say that there is no place for civil disobedience*, when laws are morally wrong or if they’re immorally enforced.
*That is also a good way to be dismissed from a jury pool. When one of the attorneys asks you if civil disobedience is ever justified and you say yes, definitely, he will reply with a goodbye. (Been there, done that. )
You are conflating Sin with the laws of nations. It’s not the same thing and it’s not meant to be the same. If your issue is with how there Seperation between religion and government, most people here including Christians would heartily agree with you.
Otherwise, it’s perfectly normal for you to not be able to understand what sin is. This is because you are convinced that God is only an imaginary construct. People who disagree with you about God’s existence and nature believe in the concept of Sin.
Let me try and explain the concept of Sin (as I understand it) without mentioning God and perhaps you will get it. We Sin against someone when we deprive someone of things that should be rightfully given to him or her. For example, people deserve to be told the truth, so lying to someone is depriving them and a sin against them.
People whom we claim to “love”, deserve true and abiding love, hence the idea of fidelity and commitment through marriage, taking care of parents etc.
I hope this helps. The point is not about feeling guilty, it’s bout doing the right thing. And God has extended grace to us by providing a means to be forgiven and to be united with him in love in Jesus Christ.
Morals are personal. Each person decides what his/hers morals are and his the right to change them as the situation changes. In a free secular society, there are no commandments.
I am not conflating sin with the laws of nations. Sin is a religious concept. Laws are a way to live in society. Sin has no legal nor moral authority over non-believers nor anyone else for that matter. Laws of a society are hopefully made for the people, by the people and of the people. Each person has the human right to define his/hers morals, ethics, and values within the laws of a free secular society. It is against human rights for any religion to impose religious commandments or sins on society.
I certainly don’t look to Romans 13:1 to justify obey the speed limits on the roads. The speed limits are there for overall societal safety and order. But human reasoning is need above the speed limit laws. Is the weather okay? Is someone stuck on the road? In these cases, personal morals, ethics, and values determine the best course of action in these situation, not going back to some ancient book who’s writers know nothing about driving a car.
But you are presenting the two in conversation as though you are conflating them:
The problem here is a political system that is linked to a belief system. As Ashwin said:
I agree and understand that you are not really conflating the two, however, you were condemning religion based upon examples of bad political systems. If a government chooses to tie a political system to a religion, it is not the fault of the religion, it is the fault of the government and the people. In any case, this is not the way it is with Christianity and Jesus was very clear about this.
