We still need rules to live by. Even if everything can be technically permissible since the wages haves already been paid so long as you have faith according to Christianity, we still need morals so people don't come to harm or are abused. At least that's the spirit of much of society's laws past and present. How do we decide right from wrong? I agree that we're limited beings but that doesn't mean we can't figure out how not to be total dicks to one another. I take exception to using Christianity as the basis for morality, simply because faith is not a tangible enough attribute to measure people by. Many people are Christian in name only. Many are raised in the religion without taking much thought if that's something they believe in. And then there's the countless other religions. Why is Christainity picked over all those others because some "novel" way of looking at sin. I bet you can look at any religion and find something that sets that religion apart from the rest. That's why they're different religions. That alone doesn't make that religion right. It's only "right" because people in that religion think it's right. That alone isn't enough to set morals by. You can claim to appeal to higher authority but many religions make the same claim as well. In the end it's something you're deciding for yourself, through your own rationalizations because that's all anyone has to go on. Unless God comes down and sorts this all out for us. Well gain, since the last time he did it with Mormonism Baha'ism Islam Christianity Judaism Zoroastrianism.
I have said multiple times that this was only MY view of Christianity. I wasn't addressing other religions, merely attempting to explain to Wolf what (I think) the "religion" is all about. And of course beauty is a subjective concept. (though perhaps not as much as is often thought) And I wasn't arguing that the way Christianity looks at sin makes it better than other religions, only different. (I DO think that it does, but that is not a logically defensible position, and is out of place in a debate)
On an individual basis, people can use Christianity as their own moral compass but it's not something can be used as a measuring rod to measure all human beings. Firstly because it's just another religion among others. It may seem "beautiful" to you because of some philosophy that attracts you personally but that's just your subjective preference. There are things in Zoroastrianism I find far more beautiful in Christianity. Who's more right, you or me, when we're using such highly subjective terms like "beauty" and trying to force such preferences as absolutes on everyone. In any case, Christianity owes a lot to Zoroastrianism more than anything else anyways so it's moot point to say Christainity is somehow "unique."
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT. Bloody hell. How many times do I have to say it? Regardless of whether you think there "should" be a measuring stick or not, Christianity says that there is no measuring stick. Everyone is equally evil. And again, I am not trying to force you, or anyone, to accept my views. I'm just trying to explain what I believe to be true.
Also, with regards to Zoroastrianism, after having a look at the wiki article, errr. No. It's essentially not-Judaism with a bit of taoism thrown in the mix. It's still about DOING. YOU doing YOUR best to ward off the chaos. Christianity (as I believe it) is about BELIEVING. I do think it's a fascinating religion, but I don't think it was as heavily influential on Judaism as the critical scholars seem to think.
Secondly, while treating all sin as equal sounds good and all, especially for someone who's genuinely struggling for redemption for what other religions consider major and even unforgivable sins. It also open the door for people to abuse Christianity to get away with anything. Case in point, pro-lifers killing doctors and bombing abortion clinics. Society easily can see the hypocrisy such faulty logic right away but how are they the least bit reprehensible if they're living according to God's will not Man's law? Imagine if society laws were based around the same logic. If you have faith in God you do whatever the hell you wanted. But if you didn't believe in God, it doesn't matter if you help out the poor or treat people with the utmost kindness and respect, you're the filth of the earth until you repent for not believing in a certain deity. That is not justice. That is why I can't abide by Christianity being used as standard to judge everyone by. You even admit yourself that it's not about keeping a moral code. So it shouldn't be used as one. Not on a universal scale at least.
And here's the flip side. While christians have free will, that does not mean they should just go out and do whatever they please. There may be no (eternal) punishment for doing so, (it is quite likely there will be a temporal consequence) but in doing so they a) give christians a bad name and b) go against what God wants them to do. You CAN do whatever the hell you want to do, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Just because God has taken away (eternal) punishment for sins, (at great cost) doesn't mean that he wants you to go and abuse that ad infinitum. Yes, it has the possibility for abuse, but that's sort've where love comes in. This is the hardest part to explain to people who aren't christians, or who are christians but haven't been introduced to the concept before. Look at it this way. Say you're drowning. As hard as you try, you can't get yourself out. But then God jumps in and pulls you out. In the process his body is ripped to shreds by the rocks in the water. But you're out. You're clear of the water. But, damn, the rush you get from jumping in is just awesome. So you jump in again, and start to drown again, God jumps in again and pulls you out, but, again, his body is torn to pieces by the rocks (God has a healing factor, so he can't die from blood loss) Every time you jump back in, God will pull you out before you drown, but the cost to himself is unimaginable. So would you keep jumping in?
Essentially, yes abuse is possible, yes it happens, but no that does make it right. Nor can we judge a religion on whether it has a system of "checks and balances". Religion cannot be judged on effects, (unless you're a social planner) religion must be judged upon its truth. Whether that truth is universal or not is not something which would be on topic here.
Finally, AGAIN, a christian is merely a non-christian who's believed. They're both scum of the earth, no matter how many good deeds they've performed, it's not enough to erase the selfishness, arrogance, lust, self-righteousness, etc. An atheist who gives millions of dollars to charity and does relief work out of the relative goodness of his heart is on the same level as a christians who abuses his wife and is racist. Conversely, Mother Teresa is on the same level as the hooker who beats her kids and shoots up. This, however, is NOT a societal judgment. Christianity does not set up societies (for the most part) Many societies may be founded on christian or pseudo-christian principles, and often those societies end up working the best, but this should be considered seperately from the actual religion. As I said before, just because there are no eternal consequences, doesn't mean there are no temporal consequences. Justice is not abrogated for christians, it is merely confined to the temporal realm. Let's look at an example nearly all religions would agree on. If a shopkeeper fixed his scales to show things as heavier than they were, that would be unjust, and, in most societies, illegal. In most religions which have an afterlife, he might get caught, and pay for his injustice in the temporal, and then (in, say, hinduism) be punished for that injustice by being reincarnated as a worm. Similarly, if he was an honest shopkeeper all his life, he might be rewarded by good business in the temporal realm, and by being reincarnated as one in a higher class in the eternal. Christianity says differently. Christianity says that in the temporal realm, yes, good things may happen to you if you're just, and bad things if you're unjust (though not necessarily), and the action itself is just or unjust regardless of the consequences, HOWEVER in the eternal realm, things are a little different. You may, in fact, pay for your injustice, or not have to pay for your justice, OR you can allow someone else to pay for your injustice. This is sort've the paradox. If God is just, then injustice must be paid for. If God is love, then he must simultaneously not want humans to have to pay for their injustice. Hate the injustice, love the one who is unjust. Thus Jesus paying for the injustice.
In summary (of that paragraph) I think Justice can and should be administered in a temporal context. However, that administration is NOT a part of christianity. Christian principles (that is to say, the moral code laid out in the Bible which I take to be the way God wants us to act) may or may not be used as standards of justice, but that point is somewhat irrelevant to the actual "religion" itself.
Finally, again, I am merely trying to help you understand my point of view, not judge anyone else or any other religions. Obviously I think christianity IS superior to other religions, but for the most part that is not possible to prove in a debate.
CID, hopefully that helps to clear up some things as well. If not, I'll try to do so in a future post. I don't think our positions are incompatible.
