This is extremely creepy. Are you saying that every act done by anyone without reference to God (presumably the Christian one) is a sin?
2 Likes
Yes.
And it makes sense that this would cause âan unpleasant feeling of fear or uneaseâ (creepy) in those who reject God.
Itâs also âcreepyâ for many of us who donât reject God.
5 Likes
I donât think you understand what causes the feeling of unease, since you equate it with fear. Itâs not fear that God will punish me for my sin, or even that what I do is sin. Itâs that anyone can believe what you say here, because it suggests that you are alienated from human decency and that you incline toward theocracy.
2 Likes
de novo creation of Adam and Eve and the âfallâ of mankind.
1 Like
-
I do not equate it with fear. I assumed you did, for you said it was âcreepyâ and Wikipedia said thatâs what the word means. If you meant something else, perhaps you should have been more clear. As I understand it, âcreepyâ is a word people use to describe, for example, old men leering at teenaged girls at the mall. So you can see the difficulty I have in relating that word to something I wrote here. Whatever meaning you intended, it has something to do with the fact that I believe âevery act done by anyone without reference to God is a sin.â
-
How does this view alienate me from human decency? Are you defining âhuman decencyâ in strictly atheistic terms? I must confess that I do indeed alienate myself from (reject and eschew) atheistic world-views. If you are not defining the term in strictly atheistic terms, then my question to you stands. Would the homeless person agree with you that Jane is alienated from human decency?
-
The only theocratic government to which I am open is one that has God at the seat of power, not any mere human (e.g., heaven).
What is the argument that produces the conclusion âX never happenedâ?
Thatâs not bad. Yes, thatâs creepy, yet Iâm not afraid of those old men. So you have answered your question. Iâm not afraid of you, but I would be if I thought you would act on your opinions.
No. Iâm defining it in human terms. In human terms, an atheist buying food for a homeless person is doing something good, not sinning against God. Your idea that everything an atheist does must by definition be wrong is insulting, intolerant, and, dare I say it, un-Christian.
Well, thatâs nice. Are you in favor of first amendment protection for atheism?
2 Likes
no evidence of X ever happening.
At some point absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence.
âŚif and only if we would expect to have seen evidence if X had happened.
âIâm not afraidâ tells me what you didnât mean in your usage of the term without telling me anything about what you did mean. In short, I still have no idea what you meant by âcreepy.â Please be more clear, or add relevant synonyms, or choose another term. Just choose something other than what you didnât mean.
âNo. Iâm defining it in human terms.â
It is quite obvious that itâs a human term. We are both humans who are conversing. But is that âhuman termâ strictly atheistic (e.g., secular humanism)? If âhuman decencyâ is defined in such a way as to exclude God, then it is atheistic. However, if it does not exclude God, then my question remains: How does my view alienate me from human decency? Again, would the homeless person agree with you that Jane is alienated from human decency? I donât think he would, and you havenât made a case that she is (nor that I am).
âIn human terms, an atheist buying food for a homeless person is doing something good, not sinning against God.â
If you would be so kind as to go back and re-read my post with a more open mind, perhaps you might notice that I had already acknowledged this point. âHumanly speaking,â I said, âboth cases are examples of a civic good.â Full stop. Read that again, and this time please hear me. I already acknowledged that John was doing something good, humanly speakingâand yet at the same time he was nevertheless sinning against God, theologically speaking.
âYour idea that everything an atheist does must by definition be wrong is insulting, intolerant, and, dare I say it, un-Christian.â
Again, you need to read my post with a less defensive and more open mind. I never said that everything an atheist does must be wrong by definition. I said it must be sin by definition, and within a post that was making a distinction between mundane wrongdoing and what constitutes sin, using an example of something that is a civic good and, at the same time, nevertheless a sin. Again, the atheist was doing something good, humanly speaking.
It is difficult to capture in words how strongly I support that.
Do you agree with John Harshman above, when he said, âIf and only if we would expect to have seen evidence if X had happenedâ? Is that the stipulation you intended?
If so, then what evidence would you expect to see for (1) a de novo creation of Adam and Eve, and (2) the covenantal âfallâ of mankind?
I really see no justification for this at all. In fact passages such as Romans 2:13-15 (especially when read in its Second Temple Period context), say the complete opposite.
I donât understand, since your example of the old men leering encapsulated the meaning of âcreepyâ quite well. I hesitate to belabor this trivial point.
No. Human decency is orthogonal to religion. Itâs neither atheistic nor theistic.
Because it runs counter to ordinary morality. The homeless person would agree with me that you are alienated from human decency; Jane is fine. The homeless person would agree with me that John was not committing a sin but was acting morally.
And this is a problem. Doesnât that mean that John should not have given the homeless man food? Or does human decency take precedence over sin?
Are you saying that sin isnât wrong?
1 Like