PDA

View Full Version : Do Christians sin less than non-Christians?



kalam
03-29-2014, 09:10 PM
Hi Bluesky,

I am going to try and transfer over our discussion from the other thread. I am not aware of a smooth way to quote or move over, so hopefully this does not appear to messy or difficult to follow:


Bluesky said:

"...I would be happy to assert, argue and defend the thesis that someone who professes with a loud voice (over a pulpit even) that he is a Christian, yet exploits, abuses and injures children is most probably speaking falsehood. If you sound like a saint but live like Lucifer, a Christian you ain't."

KaL said:

"This is going to be a bit on an odd, hypothetical and un-provable question - my apologies if I am unable to state it clearly. Are you inferring in your quote above, that you believe that a Christian sins less than a non believer, lets say, on average? For example, if God were to take an "average" Christian (whatever that is) and add up all of their sins over a twenty year period, and compare the number (not the sins themselves) to the total number of sins of an "average" non-Christian (again, whatever that is), the Christian would sin less? If so significantly less? Or would the makeup of the sins be different (i.e Christians may stray away from more obvious sins), however the total number would be statistically similar? I would presume that most Christians would like to believe, or feel more comfortable believing they sin less as a result, however is that actually statistically correct? Do we not all "live like Lucifer?"

Bluesky said:

"Wow. That is a good question. I would feel safer answering the question, Does a Christian sin less after his/her conversion experience than before? To assert that the number of sins that an average Christian commits is less than the average non-Christian is an impossible thesis to posit with any degree of confidence. To this day, there are individual non-believers whom I know whose characters I admire and envy in many respects.

As you read the New Testament, isn't it obvious that the purpose of becoming follower of Christ (who was sinless) is to become like Him in disposition and character? The whole purpose of Christ redeeming and saving us is to "save us from our sins" which is not only meant to save us from the guilt and penalty of our moral failures, but also to rid us of them in our behaviour. So yes, an authentic believer should sin less than the non-believing person he once was. Otherwise, Jesus CHrist would have died in vain for that person.

Does that make sense?"

KaL said:

"I agree. I too know many non-Christians who live life in such a manner, whose morals and values are very much aligned with those found within the most ardent of Christians, that I believe it is entirely possible that Christians, on average, sin just as often as non-Christians, on average. As such, I don't agree that "If you sound like a saint but live like Lucifer, a Christian you ain't. ". I believe everyone "lives like Lucifer", in that regard. Also for that reason, I would suggest (not necessarily to you) not to use that view or thought process in trying to determine, or "judge" one to be, or not to be a Christian based on the sins he or she commits. Everyone is guilty of the same.

KaL quoted Bluesky here:

"...So yes, an authentic believer should sin less than the non-believing person he once was. Otherwise, Jesus CHrist would have died in vain for that person."

KaL said:

I think this is a bit of a leap, based on what we might "hope" would be the result. I think (and can in no way prove) that is entirely possible that the new authentic believer may sin DIFFERENTLY, however not less then they had before as a non-believing person he/she once was, but aren't (basically) all sins equal in God's eyes? I also think your statement "Otherwise, Jesus Christ would have died in vain for that person" is also stretching. Is there a biblical basis for that, in relation to what we are discussing? What I mean is, is there a biblical basis for stating that one of the reasons Jesus died, saving "...us from our sins" was to rid us of them in our behaviour?

Bluesky said:

"That's an interesting opinion.

So are you arguing about what the New Testament teaches about the Christian life? As I understand the New Testament, our lives should be exemplary such that others might detect the Spirit of Christ in us and be drawn to Him. How is that possible if there is no difference between the believer and non-believer?"

KaL said:

"What I've stated earlier, isn't much more than an uneducated opinion. I am not really arguing anything, including what the NT teaches about Christian life. I absolutely believe there is likely to be differences between believers and non-believers. I am not convinced being a Christian means sinning less. Christians may strive towards this (try to become more like Him in disposition and character), but unless something inherent in their nature is changed, I am not sure that is possible by virtue of our human nature. Maybe its the trying/striving which counts.

Please correct me if mistaken. Going to try and add onto my earlier point here (wish me luck):

The NT (Jesus) teaches (commands?) Christians to be baptized, however not doing so doesn't preclude one from entering Heaven. Therefore the Christian who does not follow the teaching of the NT (Jesus) in this regard, can still be "saved from our sins", saved from the "penalty of moral failures", therefore Jesus Christ did not "die in vain for that person." Is this not similar to the NT (Jesus) teaching (commanding?) Christians about sin?

Thanks for indulging me."

Bluesky quoted KaL:

"but unless something inherent in their nature is changed, I am not sure that is possible by virtue of our human nature."

Bluesky said:

This is exactly what happens (or SHOULD happen) at conversion. The Christian receives a new nature. That is what conversion is all about. If you missed this, you've missed Christianity entirely.

KaL said:

Perhaps I am using not necessarily the best word choices (nature, change in nature etc). Perhaps you can assist me with understanding what it means to receive "a new nature". Sorry for my peppering you with questions here:

Are you saying that with conversion to Christianity (specifically):
...our sinful nature is removed?, or or human tendencies or inclinations towards sinful behaviours is lessened?

If so, are these changes to our nature, supernatural? (for lack of a better word...is miracle better?)

Going back to my original question (which you responded to by saying "Wow that is a good question", I asked you if you were inferring that Christians sin less on average than non Christians. You agreed that "To assert that the number of sins that an average Christian commits is less than the average non-Christian is an impossible thesis to posit with any degree of confidence. To this day, there are individual non-believers whom I know whose characters I admire and envy in many respects."

It seems (of course I may be way off here), that you are now stating that Christians receive a new nature which would then put them into a position of sinning less. It at least appears that way from the way you used my specific statement (which was a part of my explanation as to why I did not believe Christians would sin less than non-Christians). I fully get that its highly unlikely a proper study can be conducted to count sins, compare etc. etc. My original question to you was for your opinion.

Have I really "missed Christianity entirely", because of a difference of opinion about what it means to receive a new nature? Isn't that also a bit of a leap? Are you dismissing any knowledge or understanding I may have about Christianity because of this?

Bluesky - I appreciate your discussion with me on this, and am glad you came back to this topic. I am concerned that we've gone off topic from the original post. If asked by the moderator, I will certainly start a new thread."

KaL

Aristotle
03-30-2014, 12:54 PM
Do Christians sin less than non-Christians?

No.

kalam
03-30-2014, 05:36 PM
Hi there,


Do Christians sin less than non-Christians?

No.


I am leaning this way, too. I am presuming that most would want to believe or hope differently.

KaL

Anapeg
03-30-2014, 09:41 PM
When taken as an average, across the board, no there would be no difference or at least so small a difference as to be immeasurable. Human nature will out regardless of religious standing. There will be good and bad in all.

The Left Sock
03-30-2014, 09:43 PM
Being a member of any one religion does nothing to decrease 'sin' - however you want to define that term.

A moral person sins less than an immoral person. Morality is a learned skill, it is not something that can just be given to anyone.

You have to understand suffering, and develop compassion for fellow human beings, in order to become a moral human being. You can't get that through prayer; you get that through life experience. Well, some people get it - some stay ignorant.

kalam
03-31-2014, 06:39 PM
Hi The Berean,


I would like to ask that you please keep your responses within this discussion on topic. A number of your responses within this thread have strayed away from the philiosophical (for lack of better term) discussion on whether Christians (on average) sin less than non-Christians. Questions such as "Can one talk quantity about sin, when ANY sin is too much, beside God's holiness?" are distractiing, as clearly we can talk about quantity - that is a great part of this discussion. This is what we are doing.

Similarly, the "drug addict now trusting God and staying clean. The hooker off the streets, living a better life. The serial killer leading others to God from his jail cell." I am not disputing those situations, however they are not what we are discussing. Additionally, interjecting after my comment to Aristotle "Don't count on that answer to be a true statement of belief. And don't seek to use such a belief as justification before God." is also off topic, and seems to be designed to derail my discussion.

The messaging in John 3:16-17 is one of the most clear and direct statements within the NT about Christianity. Very important, but also very off topic in this case.


Much appreciated,

KaL

kalam
03-31-2014, 07:37 PM
The Berean,


But tio say "clearly we can talk about quantity - that is a great part of this discussion. This is what we are doing.", when the bible states ALL have sinned, is obviously part of the issue.

Without the forgiveness of God, the eternal penalty for stealing a pencil is exactly the same as for murdering a person.

"All have sinned" is not the discussion, nor is the penalty for sins without God's forgiveness. If you want to discuss any of the items you have brought up, please take it to another thread.

I am politely once again asking you to staying on topic.

KaL

Bluesky
04-02-2014, 09:03 AM
I have intended to write an extensive answer to this question - but it entails a bit of a romp through the epistles, so I am waiting for some time.. really busy right now.

kalam
04-02-2014, 05:58 PM
Hi Anapeg,


Human nature will out regardless of religious standing. There will be good and bad in all.

This is where I am at too, as of now. Its fair to assume that others believe that a "new nature" occurs, or is received as a result of becoming a Christian which has an impact on this. Not all Christians (regardless of knowledge in the area) agree however. I am trying to understand better the "new nature", and its impact on how often Christians sin, compared to how often non-Christians sin, on average.

KaL

kalam
04-02-2014, 06:01 PM
Hi Bluesky,


I have intended to write an extensive answer to this question - but it entails a bit of a romp through the epistles, so I am waiting for some time.. really busy right now.

Excellent. I am particularly interested in your thoughts on this.

KaL

Anapeg
04-03-2014, 03:37 PM
When younger and regularly attending church it seemed to my young eyes the most vociferous christians were the ones doing the vast majority of the sinning. Those who supported the sinners where the most ostentatious of the flock. All knew what went on but turned a blind eye and smiled broadly upon receiving a slap on the back from the "monied" one's. So does one sin trump another? By giving tacit approval were the 'poor folk' as dirty as those making a buck on the backs of the poor? Is it worse to do something or to allow something to happen?

kalam
04-04-2014, 12:29 AM
I am now at a complete loss. I've asked you politely and respectfully twice to stay on topic. You indicated "All right.", and I thought you were finished. Now I think you are purposefully trying to derail my thread. Not only that - you are posting purposefully in a disruptive manner. What am I to do? Click the "report post" button? You are the moderator.

KaL

Barry Morris
04-04-2014, 01:10 AM
The Berean,



I am now at a complete loss. I've asked you politely and respectfully twice to stay on topic. You indicated "All right.", and I thought you were finished. Now I think you are purposefully trying to derail my thread. Not only that - you are posting purposefully in a disruptive manner. What am I to do? Click the "report post" button? You are the moderator.

KaL

Of course you're at a loss. Let me make your day.

kalam
04-04-2014, 04:41 PM
Hi Aristotle,


Do Christians sin less than non-Christians?

No.

I am interested in your take on this, from a Catholic perspective. Why, or why not? How does a "new nature" come into play?

KaL

Anapeg
04-04-2014, 04:52 PM
As a recovering Catholic I seem to recall there being gradients of sin, I will stand corrected but is there not also at least one stop before Hell? Purgatory, am I correct?

Anapeg
04-05-2014, 01:25 PM
Kalam, I believe you can tell due to the lack of responses those practising questions who frequent this site when faced with an honest perplexing query vanish. They will go to great lengths to avoid self examination for fear the questions weaken their resolve in my estimation. Yet others will stay away until the dust settles and they can make believe the questions were never put forward. When push comes to shove the answers will be the obligatory "I was busy" or "I do have a life" and so on. Arguments, there are plenty but true deep discussion, not so much. Obfuscation is what sees the most exercise here.

The Berean
04-05-2014, 02:16 PM
Kalam, I believe you can tell due to the lack of responses those practising questions who frequent this site when faced with an honest perplexing query vanish. They will go to great lengths to avoid self examination for fear the questions weaken their resolve in my estimation. Yet others will stay away until the dust settles and they can make believe the questions were never put forward. When push comes to shove the answers will be the obligatory "I was busy" or "I do have a life" and so on. Arguments, there are plenty but true deep discussion, not so much. Obfuscation is what sees the most exercise here.

Thanks for today's chuckle!!!

Anapeg
04-05-2014, 02:28 PM
Thanks for today's chuckle!!!

Come on ol' man, you of all know it is verbatim the way of things. Blue is often busy but the rest of you come to argue more than discuss. Pick some silly obscure point and avoid the meat of the question. RW is by far and away the leader in these tactics. You, you are good to a point then you pull out the "sometimes you just have to believe" card. Blue, well he gets all philosophical and preachy on me and looses me. In short, forget all I have said, the problem is me.

The Berean
04-05-2014, 03:45 PM
Come on ol' man, you of all know it is verbatim the way of things. Blue is often busy but the rest of you come to argue more than discuss. Pick some silly obscure point and avoid the meat of the question. RW is by far and away the leader in these tactics. You, you are good to a point then you pull out the "sometimes you just have to believe" card. Blue, well he gets all philosophical and preachy on me and looses me. In short, forget all I have said, the problem is me.

In this case, as I believe often happens, the OP has a certain way of looking at things, and doesn't want any real discussion about it. Fine.

As to the "sometimes you just have to believe card", that's not the way I see it, but I'm OK with having a different point of view.

Will be interested to see what Blue has to contribute!!

Anapeg
04-05-2014, 05:02 PM
Blue is great but being a preacher he can get wordy.

kalam
04-05-2014, 06:05 PM
Hi Anapeg,


Kalam, I believe you can tell due to the lack of responses those practising questions who frequent this site when faced with an honest perplexing query vanish. They will go to great lengths to avoid self examination for fear the questions weaken their resolve in my estimation. Yet others will stay away until the dust settles and they can make believe the questions were never put forward. When push comes to shove the answers will be the obligatory "I was busy" or "I do have a life" and so on. Arguments, there are plenty but true deep discussion, not so much. Obfuscation is what sees the most exercise here.

I don't think that's necessarily the case with this topic (the vanishing part). The topic itself may not be interesting to some; it may be challenging beliefs (including mine); it may be hard to think about. Additionally, not all topics are easily discussed in this type of forum - especially with the "peculiarities" of SooNet.

KaL

The Berean
04-05-2014, 06:08 PM
:) :) :)

Anapeg
04-05-2014, 06:18 PM
Ah yes, when the point being made is more important than the point being discussed? Often witnessed, never over come.

kalam
04-05-2014, 06:19 PM
The Berean,


In this case, as I believe often happens, the OP has a certain way of looking at things, and doesn't want any real discussion about it. Fine.

I would guess that it is only you that believes that. Everyone has a "certain way of looking at things", however your assumptive and presumptuous meaderings about the "OP", your off topic comments and purposeful attempts to derail this thread along with your clever editing of my earlier post to hide your now deleted comment says a great deal more about you, rather than if "OP" wants real discussion. I would suggest at this point it would be better over all if you respectfully chose to stay out of the thread.

KaL

The Berean
04-05-2014, 07:26 PM
The Berean,



I would guess that it is only you that believes that. Everyone has a "certain way of looking at things", however your assumptive and presumptuous meaderings about the "OP", your off topic comments and purposeful attempts to derail this thread along with your clever editing of my earlier post to hide your now deleted comment says a great deal more about you, rather than if "OP" wants real discussion. I would suggest at this point it would be better over all if you respectfully chose to stay out of the thread.

KaL

Oh, by all means, unless your comments get just a little weirder than above.
Edit to add that if one was to hide or edit comments, it would surely be garbage like this.

KDawg
04-05-2014, 07:37 PM
Oh, by all means, unless your comments get just a little weirder than above.
Why don't you just take a hint? Three smilies not required.

The Berean
04-05-2014, 11:01 PM
Why don't you just take a hint? Three smilies not required.

Nor expected!!

kalam
04-06-2014, 06:55 PM
Oh, by all means, unless your comments get just a little weirder than above.

This is becoming astounding.

Please delete your insulting comment. I would have thought the moderator of this area was to behave and post within the tenets of Soonet. Incredible.

KaL

kalam
04-06-2014, 09:28 PM
Hi The Left Sock,


Being a member of any one religion does nothing to decrease 'sin' - however you want to define that term.

A moral person sins less than an immoral person.

Lets say for argument's sake that "sin" equated to immoral acts or thoughts. Would you say that Christians act or think immorally less than (on average) than non-Christians?

KaL

The Left Sock
04-06-2014, 09:45 PM
I think it is entirely possible, in fact probable, that a person who sincerely adopts the tenets of a belief system (including Christianity), and strives to incorporate those basic moral rule structures into their daily lives, can indeed be more moral, and less apt to 'sin'. But this is an individual result, not a collective one.

So again, simply being a member of any one religion guarantees nothing. Simply claiming to be a Christian, or member of any other faith, does nothing. In order to become more moral, a person must come to understand why being a good person is better than being a bad person, and this knowledge can only come from life experience. Once a person has this basic understanding, which is really not so basic at all, then a belief system like Christianity can enhance their ability to stay within a set of moral guidelines. But the morality must exist in the first place, for the guidelines to have any real effect.

There is much talk of 'being filled with the spirit', of people 'praying to be free from sin'. I don't buy into the supernatural aspect of morality, the idea that becoming a more moral person is some kind of gift, given from a Higher Power. If that were the case, people could pray to learn how to fly airplanes, instead of going to flight school. The fact is, human lessons must be learned here on the ground, among other humans. There are no mystical shortcuts, that I can see.

The Left Sock
04-06-2014, 10:22 PM
For an example of how morality is born, I offer up a childhood memory that has continued to haunt me, some 40 years later.

In grade one or two, back in the 70's, we are all herded into the gym, to watch some movies on sharing, caring, etc.,,,

In one film, it depicted a normal summer day in a typical neighborhood. The unmistakable sound of the ice cream truck coming down the street could be heard. A small boy runs into his house, and begs his mother for money to buy ice cream. They are obviously not wealthy, but she eventually relents, and pulls down a jar of change she has stashed away for something special, and gives the boy some money. He runs after the ice cream truck, just making it, before it pulls away.

This little boy is so proud and happy to be getting ice cream, and he takes his place among his little pals. Just then, another boy bumps into him, and his ice cream falls out of his hand, and lands in the dirt. The movie stops. The caption reads.... "what would you do now?"

The discussion that follows revolves around whether it would be okay to laugh, to console.... You get the point.

But for me, in my fragile egg-shell mind, something exploded. I was absolutely devastated by what I saw, couldn't get it out of my mind. Still haven't gotten it completely out of my mind. For me, it was the dawn of empathy, the first time I can recall feeling true sorrow for another human being. The kid was an actor, the scenario staged, but that didn't matter. The very idea of that little boy trying so hard to be part of the group, to feel dignity, his mother's sacrifice, all of it.... ran through me like electricity. I saw the full picture, for the first time.

Maybe I was ready to see things in a different light. Maybe many other small things built up to this final moment of breakthrough. I don't know. What I do know, is the world changed for me from that day forward. I've done lots of lousy, selfish things since then, but since then I've always had the ability to look at things, through other people's eyes. Did it make me more moral? I don't know. But for certain, it took away my excuse that I didn't know any better. I've always known better, since that day. So every awful thing I've done since that first insight, I must take ownership of. I am guilty... of that, there can be no question.

The $64,000 question is... what exactly am I guilty of, and who is going to judge it?

dancingqueen
04-07-2014, 02:42 AM
I recently read an article from a magazine discussing the moral flexibility of people of faith. After I get some more sleep I will go over it again to see if it hold relevance to this topic.
If I remember correctly, however, it talked about people who feel they where doing good tend to be more flexible in their introspective moral reasoning.

The Berean
04-07-2014, 11:06 AM
IThere is much talk of 'being filled with the spirit', of people 'praying to be free from sin'. I don't buy into the supernatural aspect of morality, the idea that becoming a more moral person is some kind of gift, given from a Higher Power. If that were the case, people could pray to learn how to fly airplanes, instead of going to flight school. The fact is, human lessons must be learned here on the ground, among other humans. There are no mystical shortcuts, that I can see.

There are no "mystical shortcuts". And praying to learn to fly would be pretty self-serving, doncha think?? Hardly a Christian attitude.

What you might "buy into" is the reality of repentance. It IS a change of heart, and attitude, wherein one turns from a selfish self serving person, into one that chooses to love God, and therefore love His creation. The power to do that is given by God as needed. Sin remains a part of our lives, because the "old man' very much wants to remain in control.

Do Christians, as a result, sin less?? Less than who?? How will you compare one person to another? Shouldn't we be concerned with what God thinks about our sin, and not be comparing ourselves to other people?? After all, something that I should NOT be doing, because it's not right for me, is something that may be perfectly acceptable and right to another Christian.

dancingqueen
04-08-2014, 10:54 AM
I recently read an article from a magazine discussing the moral flexibility of people of faith. After I get some more sleep I will go over it again to see if it hold relevance to this topic.
If I remember correctly, however, it talked about people who feel they where doing good tend to be more flexible in their introspective moral reasoning.

I'll get back to this later, Just getting over a pretty bad bug and don't feel like doing much reading :sad:

Bluesky
04-08-2014, 11:03 AM
I think to answer the question, “Do Christians sin less than non-Christians” would be a vain exercise, because it is impossible in real life to quantify moral/immoral actions. The best I can do is to present a composite of what the Bible actually teaches, and hopefully (as Christians) we can know what the Lord had intended when spiritual regeneration takes place (another term for being born again). I’ll quote the Bible extensively, so that you will see that as much as possible, I am trying to present what the Bible teaches, and not simply using anecdotal evidence.

You have no doubt realized that the term “Born again” is synonymous with the Biblical term of “being saved”, the participle form of the noun, salvation.
The gospels teach quite clearly that in order to be forgiven of our sins, and to inherit eternal life, one must “be saved”. For example, Jesus, in presenting Himself as the Good Shepherd said, “9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.”

Luke 19:8 says “The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost”

Acts 2:21 takes place after the crucifixion and resurrection. And the central message of the believers is still “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”

Which obviously gives rise to the question, “saved from what”?

In Matthew 1:21, as an angel announces the supernatural origin of the baby Jesus to Joseph, he predicts - 21 “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

Why does the Bible teach that human kind needs to be saved from their sins?

The Bible is full of the teaching that through the fall of Adam and his disobedience, all of mankind is in a state of irreconciliation with God, our maker.

Isai 59:2 states: But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

Rom 3:23 says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” meaning we fall short of his standard”

OK, so I hope it is clear that biblically speaking, sin is the problem with mankind. Would it not be logical to assume that in the act of salvation (whatever else that entails) there is the biblical expectation that in some way, a follower of Christ will sin less than he has sinned before he experienced conversion? That is, if sin has caused this alienation from God, one might expect a diminishing of sinful events in the follower of Christ, and a diminishing of the addictive power that is commonly attached to sinful lifestyles. That is part of what Jesus meant when he said, (John 8:31) “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

He is not talking about freedom from political oppression, but rather freedom from the dominating aspect of sin.

Becoming a Christian means becoming a follower of Christ. In those days, Christ’s disciples literally followed him around, 24/7. That is how Jewish rabbis taught their pupils.

These days, following Christ means that we live to become like Him. The goal in every believers life is to become like their Master. Rom 12:1-2 “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

So becoming a follower of Christ, a disciple means that one is willing to have his/her world view changed from our previous perspective to Jesus’ perspective. Our minds become renewed. We become transformed on the inside. Everything looks different when I become a Christ-follower. This renewal of the mind happens as we read and understand and believe God’s Word.

A simple way of explaining this is to see this as the development of a Christian character. Or a character remake, if you will.

The Bible talks about the fruit of the Spirit. The Bible says that believers are inhabited by the Spirit of God. You’ve heard of demon possession? Well, with believers it should be the opposite. We are “possessed” by God. And rightly so, because through the death of Christ, we have been “purchased”. Our moral debt was paid for by Christ, ad we now belong to Him entirely.

And now that the spirit of God lives in the believer, there is a powerful influence within us that mitigates the sinful dynamic that is still present in each of us.
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature Gal 5:16
Also, we are told what this “fruit” of the Spirit is - the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
So ideally these are the characteristics that OUGHT to be developing in the believers’ lives.

This is all the time I have for today. But I think there is enough biblical data to show the direction a believers life should be heading. Does a believer actually sin less than a non-believer? It’s an impossible question to answer, unless you name two individuals, unless you define which actions and thoughts are sins and which are not, and unless you can discern the hearts to ferret out all the secret sins that are committed by each of us on a daily basis.
But should I sin less than if I were a non-believer? I would very much hope so. It is the expectation that Jesus Christ has of me.

The Berean
04-08-2014, 02:58 PM
Excellent!!

dancingqueen
04-09-2014, 09:17 AM
I recently read an article from a magazine discussing the moral flexibility of people of faith. After I get some more sleep I will go over it again to see if it hold relevance to this topic.
If I remember correctly, however, it talked about people who feel they where doing good tend to be more flexible in their introspective moral reasoning.

I went over the article I read again and it does not specify religion, though it talks about feelings of high moral actions in the past does give these same people more fluidity in taking part in morally questionable activities. Though it does open the framework for some interesting questions, I fear it does not appropriately address this topic.
My apologies for interrupting.

kalam
04-11-2014, 08:51 AM
Hi Bluesky,



This is all the time I have for today. But I think there is enough biblical data to show the direction a believers life should be heading. Does a believer actually sin less than a non-believer? It’s an impossible question to answer, unless you name two individuals, unless you define which actions and thoughts are sins and which are not, and unless you can discern the hearts to ferret out all the secret sins that are committed by each of us on a daily basis.
But should I sin less than if I were a non-believer? I would very much hope so. It is the expectation that Jesus Christ has of me.

Thanks for this, Bluesky.

KaL

The Berean
04-26-2014, 10:30 AM
Or does the Christian WANT to sin less??

Aristotle
04-27-2014, 02:24 PM
Or does the Christian WANT to sin less??

I see little proof of that

The Berean
04-27-2014, 02:28 PM
I see little proof of that

I see it all the time, in the changed lives of those I fellowship with. The drunks are sober, the druggies clean.

Aristotle
04-27-2014, 02:33 PM
I see it all the time, in the changed lives of those I fellowship with. The drunks are sober, the druggies clean.

But secular, agnostic, and atheist drunks can be sober ...secular, agnostic, and atheist druggies can be clean.

And where is there proof they don't want to sin? Are they sinless because they cleaned up one aspect of their life?

The Berean
04-27-2014, 02:37 PM
How can anyone 'prove" a changed heart??

Repent means change!!

One intersting stat is that 80 percent of Teen Challenge students stay clean. Only 15 percent of the secular patients do.

Aristotle
04-27-2014, 02:39 PM
How can anyone 'prove" a changed heart??

Exactly. Which makes this question non-sensical, because it cannot be proven: Do Christians sin less than non-Christians?

Repent means change!!

For a while. Does it always stick?

dancingqueen
04-27-2014, 03:36 PM
And aa has about a 5% sucsess rate...

The Berean
04-27-2014, 05:15 PM
How can anyone 'prove" a changed heart??

Exactly. Which makes this question non-sensical, because it cannot be proven: Do Christians sin less than non-Christians?

Repent means change!!

For a while. Does it always stick?

I happen to believe that God CAN change the heart.

The Berean
04-27-2014, 05:16 PM
And aa has about a 5% sucsess rate...

Have to look into that.

Aristotle
04-27-2014, 05:42 PM
I happen to believe that God CAN change the heart.

I believe He can, too.

But I also believe that He has given us free will, and we can 'un-change' a changed heart

dancingqueen
04-27-2014, 05:46 PM
Have to look into that.

specifically, 5 - 10%

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-heart-addiction/201403/the-sober-truth-about-aa-and-the-rehab-industry

The Berean
04-27-2014, 07:24 PM
specifically, 5 - 10%

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-heart-addiction/201403/the-sober-truth-about-aa-and-the-rehab-industry

Thanks for the reference.

Interesting. It says:

"There’s no question that 12-step programs have saved people’s lives.."

Well, that's good. 5 to 10 percent is nor great, but better than none.

Buit then it says this:

"But sending everyone with an addiction to AA or its cousins is simply bad treatment that does harm to the 90% who cannot make use of such programs,..."

And proof for that is....... missing!!!

dancingqueen
04-27-2014, 09:20 PM
Thanks for the reference.

Interesting. It says:

"There’s no question that 12-step programs have saved people’s lives.."

Well, that's good. 5 to 10 percent is nor great, but better than none.

Buit then it says this:

"But sending everyone with an addiction to AA or its cousins is simply bad treatment that does harm to the 90% who cannot make use of such programs,..."

And proof for that is....... missing!!!

The article explains how the bad treatment does harm to the 90% it doesn't help...

The Berean
04-27-2014, 10:54 PM
The article explains how the bad treatment does harm to the 90% it doesn't help...

Please quote that part. I see nothing.

Bluesky
04-27-2014, 11:06 PM
Berean, I wish you would look into something for me. You quote a very low recidivism rate of 10% for Teen Challenge. I remember another organization boasting of a really high success rate as well, (I think it was Liberty Village) but what they didn't tell you was the number of clients that dropped out of the program before the term was up. And that would decrease their bragging rights considerably.

I wonder if Teen Challenge would do the same? Do they include those who drop out of the program prematurely in their 90% figure?

The Berean
04-28-2014, 12:20 AM
Berean, I wish you would look into something for me. You quote a very low recidivism rate of 10% for Teen Challenge. I remember another organization boasting of a really high success rate as well, (I think it was Liberty Village) but what they didn't tell you was the number of clients that dropped out of the program before the term was up. And that would decrease their bragging rights considerably.

I wonder if Teen Challenge would do the same? Do they include those who drop out of the program prematurely in their 90% figure?

The figure was 80 percent.

Two things at work here. TC screens applicants, as I recall, making them call in every day for a month, to show their continued interest. I suppose that helps. Second of course, is that the secular centres take anyone.

But I certainly believe that the TC rates remain higher.

Another thing I do know. The death rate of drop outs is high.

dancingqueen
04-28-2014, 06:56 AM
Please quote that part. I see nothing.

I'm afraid you would have to read the article in it's entirety, there is no singular line or phrase that describes it, rather it is a focus on a significant part of the article.
Look at it from an unbiased perspective. I had to, I thought secular medical treatment centers where better, but it turns out (If not in this article, it was another) that they are also quite unsuccessful, slightly better, but not much, and certainly not noteworthy.

Bluesky
04-28-2014, 08:32 AM
The figure was 80 percent.

Two things at work here. TC screens applicants, as I recall, making them call in every day for a month, to show their continued interest. I suppose that helps. Second of course, is that the secular centres take anyone.

But I certainly believe that the TC rates remain higher.

Another thing I do know. The death rate of drop outs is high.

OK, but my question was "Do they include the drop outs in their stats when they use this 80% figure?" Can you find out?

I guess it isn't fair to use the drop outs in stats, because obviously you want to measure the recidivism rates of those who complete the program.

The Berean
04-28-2014, 11:12 AM
OK, but my question was "Do they include the drop outs in their stats when they use this 80% figure?" Can you find out?

I guess it isn't fair to use the drop outs in stats, because obviously you want to measure the recidivism rates of those who complete the program.

It's a one year program. I don't see how using drop outs would help. if you don't graduate, you haven't completed it.

I will check into it, but I note one thing I've seen, which may have a bearing. If a man drops out early and comes back, he has to start all over again.

The Berean
04-28-2014, 02:38 PM
Here is one possible source.

http://www.acadc.org/page/page/2495014.htm

The Berean
04-28-2014, 02:48 PM
For balance, here's "something else"!! Mind you, this one doesn't dare talk about statistics.

http://teenchallengecult.blogspot.ca/2007/02/teen-challenge-success-rates-are-from.html

dancingqueen
04-28-2014, 06:32 PM
For balance, here's "something else"!! Mind you, this one doesn't dare talk about statistics.

http://teenchallengecult.blogspot.ca/2007/02/teen-challenge-success-rates-are-from.html


This study suggested that Teen Challenge had a success rate of 86%.

according to what kind of math????
64/186 =/= 86%
Sorry, like it or not teen challenge, you do count the dropouts in the calculations... that is if you want an accurate representation.
and as mentioned at the end, this survey is hardly relevant: the definitions, though specific, the methods to determine "success" are irrelevant, and the sample size is negligible. And though I can safely say (somewhat) that the agency funding the research may be impartial, the agency translating the results hardly is.
That being said, research has shown secular treatment facilities to be equally disappointing, research points to the finding of underlying causes and appropriately dealing with those through therapy as opposed to an abstinence focused approach.

The Berean
04-28-2014, 11:42 PM
I think they were talking about the continued success of those who completed the program. Not sure if including the dropouts quite fits, OR if the secular rehabs count things the same way.

I know one thing I CAN do. Find out how many went through the local program, and how many "graduated".

dancingqueen
04-29-2014, 07:25 AM
I think they were talking about the continued success of those who completed the program. Not sure if including the dropouts quite fits, OR if the secular rehabs count things the same way.

I know one thing I CAN do. Find out how many went through the local program, and how many "graduated".

Well if that is what the stats are trying to find, that is what the title of the article ought to express. That's the thing about statistics, people who understand them can make people who don't understand them as well believe just about anything.

The Left Sock
04-29-2014, 08:43 AM
Do Christians sin less than non-Christians? Well, there's a couple of points that push my opinion in both directions.

First, in order to be a Christian, you have to buy into a whole bunch of fantastic ideas that defy classical reality, and you have to incorporate them as part of your understanding of what is truth, so that works against them.

But, on the other hand, at least Christians make some effort to address the idea of sin, and work collectively to try and mitigate how much sin plays a role in their lives, so that works in their favour.

So in the end, you have a group of people with some questionable outlooks on reality, making an enhanced effort to do something about their imperfection. I'm willing to call that a draw, and say they are basically in the same boat as everyone else. I'm willing to call them equals, on the morality front.

The Berean
04-29-2014, 09:39 AM
"...a whole bunch of fantastic ideas that defy classical reality,.."

Really.

So, let's see a list, and then I'll tell you what I believe 100 percent!!!

The Left Sock
04-29-2014, 10:17 AM
Well, if you buy the walking on water thing, I'm afraid you're already sunk.

Aristotle
04-29-2014, 11:18 AM
First, in order to be a Christian, you have to buy into a whole bunch of fantastic ideas that defy classical reality

I agree.

And it totally makes sense to do so, seeing God is not bound by "classical reality" (the limit of what we humans can know and see)

The Berean
04-29-2014, 09:21 PM
Well, if you buy the walking on water thing, I'm afraid you're already sunk.

So, should I throw out the whole thing just because some things are difficult to believe, or should I trust God??

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

Bluesky
04-30-2014, 10:34 AM
Sock believes in some pretty fantastic ideas himself. :)

The Left Sock
04-30-2014, 10:28 PM
So, should I throw out the whole thing just because some things are difficult to believe, or should I trust God??

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

Well, if you take an entire book that is filled with magical, mythological, supernatural events, and regard them as the literal truth, then you really have no choice but to abandon classical reality in its entirety.

If you buy the package, you dwell in a mythological realm. So, you can trust your God if you want, but you do so separated from the reality the rest of us understand. It's still a choice, and yours to make, but I won't be joining the Magic Kingdom. I'm still doing my utmost to figure out the real world.

The Berean
04-30-2014, 10:54 PM
Yup, Blue nailed it.

The Left Sock
04-30-2014, 11:31 PM
The difference between people who think like you, and people who think like me, is easily explained. And I can using the walking on water analogy, to sum it up nicely.

I'm more interested in figuring out how gravity works first, before buying into the possibility of someone walking on water. Humanity still hasn't quite figured out gravity yet, beyond the fact that it does indeed seem to work. No one is really certain what causes gravity, but a whole lot of intelligent minds are working on solving the riddle. These are the kinds of thoughts, the kinds of work, that I 'gravitate' toward, in my quest for understanding reality.

Whereas to religious folk, it doesn't ever occur to them how gravity actually works, because it is irrelevant. They go to bed happy in the idea that whatever gravity is, God created it anyway, so there is no need to worry yourself about it. They have no problem buying into the idea that since God created gravity, He could easily change the rules, and let his Son walk on water. It's a no-brainer for them.

I'm in one camp, you're in the other. The distance between those two camps is vast. I need to know how something works, before I put my trust in it. You don't seem to be saddled with that burden. Good for you. I like my approach to life better. It's a choice. one I'm comfortable in making.

Pegasus
05-01-2014, 12:11 AM
Well said, Sock. Blue didn't "nail it." You did. You don't believe in the "God of the gaps," an intelllectually honest stance.

Barry Morris
05-01-2014, 12:11 AM
You have a different kind of faith. You have faith that man will one day fully understand every thing, every force acting in this universe, and the reaction to every action that ever happens.

And you will STILL need faith if that happened, because man would then need to know what is OUTSIDE the universe!!!

So CAN reality include something supernatural?? Your choice is no, my choice is trust. And that choice puts me where I cannot lose!!!

dancingqueen
05-01-2014, 06:25 AM
You have a different kind of faith. You have faith that man will one day fully understand every thing, every force acting in this universe, and the reaction to every action that ever happens.


And you will STILL need faith if that happened, because man would then need to know what is OUTSIDE the universe!!!


So CAN reality include something supernatural?? Your choice is no,
[QUOTE=Barry Morris;745185]my choice is trust. And that choice puts me where I cannot lose!!!

Can you substantiate ANY of that?

The Berean
05-01-2014, 08:52 AM
Can you substantiate ANY of that?

Substantiate in what way??

dancingqueen
05-01-2014, 09:03 AM
Quit stalling. Show that any of what you just said is true.

The Berean
05-01-2014, 09:33 AM
Quit stalling. Show that any of what you just said is true.

It's true for me, that I have a faith in a Supreme Creator God. it's true for Sock that he has a faith in the future ability of mankind to prove and understand every natural phenomena.

What do you want??

Bluesky
05-01-2014, 10:14 AM
The difference between people who think like you, and people who think like me, is easily explained. And I can using the walking on water analogy, to sum it up nicely.

I'm more interested in figuring out how gravity works first, before buying into the possibility of someone walking on water. Humanity still hasn't quite figured out gravity yet, beyond the fact that it does indeed seem to work. No one is really certain what causes gravity, but a whole lot of intelligent minds are working on solving the riddle. These are the kinds of thoughts, the kinds of work, that I 'gravitate' toward, in my quest for understanding reality.

Whereas to religious folk, it doesn't ever occur to them how gravity actually works, because it is irrelevant. They go to bed happy in the idea that whatever gravity is, God created it anyway, so there is no need to worry yourself about it. They have no problem buying into the idea that since God created gravity, He could easily change the rules, and let his Son walk on water. It's a no-brainer for them.

I'm in one camp, you're in the other. The distance between those two camps is vast. I need to know how something works, before I put my trust in it. You don't seem to be saddled with that burden. Good for you. I like my approach to life better. It's a choice. one I'm comfortable in making.


Till you stop treating believers like anti-intellectual dullards, this conversation is not being advanced.
As if we didn't understand that gravity works. Keep building your framework in order to keep your worldview intact and cozy. Straw man builder.

So you believe in reincarnation. You believe in things that go bump in the night. You believe that your pet dog could actually be your grandma. You believe that spinning a prayer wheel can actually have an effect on the universe. But we are the dullards. uhhuh.
I believe that the Creator of land and sea can not only walk on water but can heal the sick and make blind men like you see. :)

The Left Sock
05-01-2014, 10:16 AM
It's true for me, that I have a faith in a Supreme Creator God. it's true for Sock that he has a faith in the future ability of mankind to prove and understand every natural phenomena.

What do you want??

I don't have a 'faith' in mankind's ability to understand things, let alone 'every natural phenomena'. That statement is completely inaccurate.

The point is, mankind's knowledge has vastly expanded, ever since the day I was born, and continues in a linear, exponential way. Just think about all the advance in science in the last few decades, and you will have all the evidence you need to substantiate this as fact.

I don't need 'faith' in something that is obvious and overwhelming. Gravity may or may not be fully explained in my lifetime, but pursuing this path to knowledge is far more appealing to me than the thought of abandoning classical reality altogether, in favour of a mythological kingdom.

Humanity is what I have, and so that is what I'll stick with, for better or for worse. Deities who reign in absentia from the clouds who favour Jews and will roast everyone who doesn't get on board with the program, will just have to make do without me.

The Left Sock
05-01-2014, 10:18 AM
"Till you stop treating believers like anti-intellectual dullards, this conversation is not being advanced."

Till you stop trying to peddle myth as truth, you will never be taken seriously by intellectuals.

Aristotle
05-01-2014, 10:23 AM
Till you stop trying to peddle myth as truth, you will never be taken seriously by intellectuals.

So you do not take the following individuals seriously:

BACON / BARTH / BERGSON / DESCARTES / FICHTE / HEGEL / KANT / KIERKEGAARD / LEIBNIZ / LOCKE / MARITAIN /

MILL / PASCAL / ROUSSEAU / WEIL / WITTGENSTEIN


COPERNICUS / BRAHE / EINSTEIN / FARADAY / GALILEO / KEPLER / NEWTON / PASTEUR

BACH / BEETHOVEN / MOZART / HANDEL / HAYDN / LISZT / MAHLER / PUCCINI / RACHMANINOFF / SIBELIUS / VIVALDI

BLAKE / CEZANNE / LEONARDO / DELACROIX / DURER / INGRES / MICHELANGELO / RENOIR / REMBRANDT / RUBENS

BAUDELAIRE / BRONTE / BROWNING / CHECKOV / CHAUCER / DANTE / ****INSON / DONNE / DOSTOEVSKY / ELIOT

FRANKLIN / GOETHE / KAFKA / LOWELL / PUSHKIN / SHAKESPEARE / TOLSTOY

Bluesky
05-01-2014, 10:24 AM
What a joke! You are blind to your own history. The very guys who brought you this science that you claim to love were Christians for the most part. I guess you shouldnt take them seriously.

Barry Morris
05-01-2014, 10:24 AM
Buddhism has no truth then? Got ya!!

Sock, you said that my statement was "completely inaccurate", and then went on to affirm it!!

The Left Sock
05-01-2014, 10:47 AM
Wow, you guys are having some knee-jerk emotional reactions. Maybe take some time to re-group, gather your thoughts?

The Left Sock
05-01-2014, 11:02 AM
"So in the end, you have a group of people with some questionable outlooks on reality, making an enhanced effort to do something about their imperfection. I'm willing to call that a draw, and say they are basically in the same boat as everyone else. I'm willing to call them equals, on the morality front."

I find it fascinating that this olive branch gets completely overlooked, and the only thing that ensues is a frenetic blow-back over the leap of faith you have to take, in order to get where you are. Yet, you claim to be happy with jumping right over reality, in order to achieve that 'faith'.

Doesn't sound much like a happy bunch, at the moment! Sounds more like cognitive dissonance!

Aristotle
05-01-2014, 11:20 AM
Sock, could you please tell me why you think those people on the earlier list I provided are people who should be shunned for their lack of intellectual acuity?

Bluesky
05-01-2014, 11:45 AM
He cannot. Otherwise he would cut off the tree limb that he is seated upon and from which he pontificates.

The Left Sock
05-01-2014, 04:14 PM
Was everybody on that list a Christian? I think not. Therefore, there is nothing to respond to.

The Left Sock
05-01-2014, 04:42 PM
And I suppose everyone on that list is on record at some point, claiming the Bible is a true story, and not mythology, right?

Right?

Otherwise, that list is completely useless. Not to mention that I have heard Christians discredit a number of people on that list, for various reasons, over the years.

But hey, nice attempt at distraction!

The Berean
05-01-2014, 06:35 PM
Was everybody on that list a Christian? ...

Makes no difference to the question.

And then you also say the whole list is useless. Wrongo!!!

Aristotle
05-01-2014, 06:50 PM
Was everybody on that list a Christian? I think not. Therefore, there is nothing to respond to.

They believe in the Christian God.

Please, you're simply stalling.

Aristotle
05-01-2014, 06:54 PM
Here, just for starters, are some Christian people known to history:

Thomas Aquinas
Immanuel Kant
Soren Kierkeggard
CS Lewis

So I ask you again,Sock: please explain why and how it is that much of the world is wrong in holding these men up as exceptionally intelligent people.

Aristotle
05-01-2014, 06:56 PM
How about "the Father of Modern Philosophy"?

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth.

dancingqueen
05-01-2014, 06:58 PM
Ari, you know as well as anyone on here does that anyone can SAY they are Christian, especially if they are making a name for themselves and being Christian is the "cool" thing to do at the time.
Or maybe they, like many others claim to be Christian because that is just what they are supposed to be. Historical relevance plays a significant role here.

Aristotle
05-01-2014, 10:46 PM
Ari, you know as well as anyone on here does that anyone can SAY they are Christian, especially if they are making a name for themselves and being Christian is the "cool" thing to do at the time.
Or maybe they, like many others claim to be Christian because that is just what they are supposed to be. Historical relevance plays a significant role here.

No doubt some use it as a springboard. But again, many do not.

Let's look at one of the brightest minds of our time: Karol Wojtyla (Pope JPII). Read some of that man's work; even if you disregard the religious element you'll still be impressed with the general knowledge and vision he had.

G.K. Chesterton. I'd love for Sock to tell me what he is a buffoon.

The Berean
05-01-2014, 11:36 PM
It seems to me the so-callled "modern man" with his so-called "scientific mind" has the need to believe that science is totally incompatible with religious belief. And yet for hundreds of years, this was not the case.

Why now??

The Left Sock
05-01-2014, 11:54 PM
Ask Creflo Dollar that question.

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 12:02 AM
How about "the Father of Modern Philosophy"?

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth.

It's funny how people throw famous names around, without having any real understanding of who they were, what they said, or what they did.

The Berean
05-02-2014, 12:54 AM
Ask Creflo Dollar that question.

You call that an answer? I certainly never heard of that character, and I'll bet you never did either, before today.

Plus, how far would i have to search to find a shady character in your camp???

You can debate better.

The Berean
05-02-2014, 12:54 AM
It's funny how people throw famous names around, without having any real understanding of who they were, what they said, or what they did.

And you throw famous names OUT in just the same way!!!!

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 03:19 AM
No, I actually know something about Descartes. Have some of his works on my bookshelf.

He's the guy who posed the question about, "What if God was actually an evil genius, fooling us the whole way? How would we ever know?"

The answer is, we wouldn't.

Descartes was a 'devout Catholic' only because the alternative was to get himself condemned to death by the Church. He stopped one of his publications that took him four years to complete, because Galileo was condemned to death. He took the hint, kept his head low.

So no, I don't 'just throw names out'. I actually have some idea what I'm talking about.

dancingqueen
05-02-2014, 05:51 AM
No doubt some use it as a springboard. But again, many do not.

Let's look at one of the brightest minds of our time: Karol Wojtyla (Pope JPII). Read some of that man's work; even if you disregard the religious element you'll still be impressed with the general knowledge and vision he had.

G.K. Chesterton. I'd love for Sock to tell me what he is a buffoon.

I would suggest many of those names on your list did, historical relevance. North America was not a friendly place for non Christians when these people where young. If not as a spring board, certainly as a way of not getting ostracized and boo'ed out of town.
Remember, it wasn't until fairly recently being anything but Christian was still fairly looked down upon though not legally, definitely socially.

Barry Morris
05-02-2014, 10:17 AM
No, I actually know something about Descartes. Have some of his works on my bookshelf.

He's the guy who posed the question about, "What if God was actually an evil genius, fooling us the whole way? How would we ever know?"

The answer is, we wouldn't.

Descartes was a 'devout Catholic' only because the alternative was to get himself condemned to death by the Church. He stopped one of his publications that took him four years to complete, because Galileo was condemned to death. He took the hint, kept his head low.

So no, I don't 'just throw names out'. I actually have some idea what I'm talking about.

Not one single part of which says he was NOT a devout Catholic!! Sorry.

Bluesky
05-02-2014, 10:45 AM
No, I actually know something about Descartes. Have some of his works on my bookshelf.

He's the guy who posed the question about, "What if God was actually an evil genius, fooling us the whole way? How would we ever know?"

The answer is, we wouldn't.

Descartes was a 'devout Catholic' only because the alternative was to get himself condemned to death by the Church. He stopped one of his publications that took him four years to complete, because Galileo was condemned to death. He took the hint, kept his head low.

So no, I don't 'just throw names out'. I actually have some idea what I'm talking about.

From Wikipedia


The religious beliefs of René Descartes have been rigorously debated within scholarly circles. He claimed to be a devout Catholic, saying that one of the purposes of the Meditations was to defend the Christian faith. However, in his own era, Descartes was accused of harboring secret deist or atheist beliefs. His contemporary Blaise Pascal said that "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God."[26] Stephen Gaukroger's biography of Descartes reports that "he had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth."[27] The debate continues whether Descartes was a Catholic apologist, or an atheist concealed behind pious sentiments who placed the world on a mechanistic framework, within which only man could freely move due to the grace of will granted by God.[21]

SO it's a draw.
Throw this objection out as inconclusive and thus irrelevant.

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 02:11 PM
Throw the whole list out as irrelevant - save yourself the trouble.

Unless, of course, you want to go into a diatribe about what a great Christian Einstein was.

Lists like this are useless, when people unfamiliar with their works try to name-drop them, just for effect.

Scientific minds and theology have never mixed well, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. And it is always the religious folks who used their power to threaten and silence the scientific, because the truth threatens their power over the public. Unless, of course, you can come up with some science organizations who have condemned religious figures to death, then we can have a delightful conversation about that.

Christianity has a nasty history. To suggest that a large portion of human knowledge came from Christian minds, is laughable.

The Berean
05-02-2014, 02:16 PM
Throw the whole list out as irrelevant - save yourself the trouble.

Unless, of course, you want to go into a diatribe about what a great Christian Einstein was.

Lists like this are useless, when people unfamiliar with their works try to name-drop them, just for effect.

Scientific minds and theology have never mixed well, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. And it is always the religious folks who used their power to threaten and silence the scientific, because the truth threatens their power over the public. Unless, of course, you can come up with some science organizations who have condemned religious figures to death, then we can have a delightful conversation about that.

Christianity has a nasty history. To suggest that a large portion of human knowledge came from Christian minds, is laughable.

You forgot IMO.

Bluesky
05-02-2014, 02:34 PM
Scientific minds and theology have often worked well together. To deny this is to reveal an abysmal ignorance of history, science AND theology.

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 02:35 PM
It was not my opinion that Galileo was condemned to death by the Catholic Church, it is fact.

You say something the Church doesn't like, they will use whatever means at their disposal to silence you. That is historical truth.

And I think the same truth applies today. I think a lot of Christians would like to silence their opposition, if they got the chance. Luckily, society has evolved to the point where organized religion has limited power, or you would see the same kinds of things still happening today.

Everybody flipped out when a death Fatwa was placed on Salmon Rushdie by the Muslims. Where do you think the Muslims got the idea from? That's right, the Christians.

dancingqueen
05-02-2014, 06:06 PM
I find it interesting that no one wants to talk about historical relevance here... People love to leave that out when the topic serves to harm their position, especially religious people.

Aristotle
05-03-2014, 10:01 AM
It was not my opinion that Galileo was condemned to death by the Catholic Church, it is fact.



Not because he was a proponent of heliocentric theory, but because he wanted Church dogma changed.

Radical on the Church's part? Yes, of course. To our 21st century mind it is ridiculous; but back then it was the norm in such cases. But trying to make it look like the Church condemned him because he was behind the theory is historically wrong.

The Left Sock
05-03-2014, 02:42 PM
The argument was that human knowledge has been advanced by Christianity, when in fact, quite the opposite is true.

They don't call the 5th to 10th century The Dark Ages for nothing. When organized religion was at the peak of power, human development was at its lowest point. As organized religion gradually loosened its stranglehold on humanity, we had the Renaissance. From the 19th century on, there has been an explosion in human development that continues into today.

Look at countries in the Middle East, living in a modern Stone Age, for current examples of what too much religious power does to a population.

So it is not only Christianity that stifles human development. The Muslims are guilty of it as well. When religious dogma is allowed to supersede rational thought, it stunts the growth of a culture.

The Berean
05-03-2014, 02:59 PM
Organized religion was at the peak of it's power from the 5th to 10th century??

No.

And the rest of your post(s)??? What a bizarre rewrite of history.

The Left Sock
05-03-2014, 03:26 PM
"Organized religion was at the peak of it's power from the 5th to 10th century??"

My statement was "They don't call the 5th to 10th century The Dark Ages for nothing." Do you see the words 'peak of power' in there?

Aristotle
05-04-2014, 09:41 AM
My statement was "They don't call the 5th to 10th century The Dark Ages for nothing."

In fact, they do


http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/

Bluesky
05-07-2014, 03:41 PM
Rebut that. What he said. ^

The Left Sock
05-07-2014, 07:21 PM
No problem!

"Jamie is the founder of Listverse. He spends his time working on the site, doing research for new lists, and cooking. He is fascinated with all things morbid and bizarre."

There is your source for the 'evidence' Aristotle provided to refute the fact that the Dark Ages were dark at all. Some nobody who likes to cook and makes morbid lists.

There's your rebuttal!

Aristotle
05-07-2014, 07:44 PM
Sock is flailing already ...here's the knock-out punch(es) :)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-voices/battle-of-ideas/the-dark-ages-were-a-lot-brighter-than-we-give-them-credit-for-8215395.html

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/crash-course1/crash-course-world-history/whats-God-got-to-do-with-It/v/crash-course-world-history-14

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/08/27/the-dark-ages-werent-so-dark-and-neither-is-modernity/

Aristotle
05-07-2014, 07:51 PM
"The Dark Ages weren't so dark," said University of Nottingham historian Christina Lee, co-organizer of the second conference on Disease, Disability and Medicine in Early Medieval Europe.

http://www.livescience.com/1730-enlightened-medicine-dark-ages.html




...and last, but certainly not least:

The Dark Ages is a popular label traditionally applied to the experience of Western Europe between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance. Whether an exact date can be established for the fall of the Empire is debatable, but many suggest 476 AD, when the last (nominal) Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was removed from the throne. Establishing a beginning for the Renaissance is even more difficult, but most agree that, at the latest, the Renaissance was developing in the fourteenth century.

The term "Dark Ages" became a popular title in the eighteenth century, when many classical historians, notably Edward Gibbon, looked back to the glories of the Roman Empire, and despaired the violence, brutality and apparent lack of intellectual activity, which characterized the post-collapse era. The period was thus "dark" for its lack of the lights of civilization and intellectuals, which had been replaced by feudalism and religious dominance.

Modern historical research, on the other hand, is quickly making the label Dark Ages irrelevant, as the beginning of the Renaissance is pushed further and further back in time. Contesting the traditional interpretation of the Renaissance, many scholars, such as Charles Homer Haskins, contend that the Renaissance began earlier. Haskins advocated the "Renaissance of the Twelfth Century." More recent scholarship has examined the "Ottonian Renaissance" of the Holy Roman Empire in the 900s, and even looked further back to the "Carolingian Renaissance" under the first Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne, in the late eighth and early ninth centuries. At the heart of this movement is the realization that though the fall of the Roman Empire was indeed dramatic, and followed with disintegration, feudalism, bloodshed and warfare, the lights of antiquity and intellectualism lived on in the monasteries of Europe. Essentially the Dark Ages may not have been quite as a dark as previously thought.
- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/142449#sthash.9rfmmnno.dpuf

So, Sock in the last few weeks has supported the Victorian view (19th C) on issues, and now a 18th C view on the period between 500-1500 AD.


Sheesh...and he thinks we conservatives like to live in the past?? :)

The Left Sock
05-07-2014, 07:53 PM
Did you actually read any of the obscure crap you just posted?

'Knock-out punches'? Honestly?

It's like getting pummeled by a 3 year old girl!

Aristotle
05-07-2014, 08:15 PM
Did you actually read any of the obscure crap you just posted?



Sure did, and I see it's got you flummoxed! :)

I shall go easier next time, promise.

Bluesky
05-07-2014, 10:49 PM
Did you actually read any of the obscure crap you just posted?

'Knock-out punches'? Honestly?

It's like getting pummeled by a 3 year old girl!

Soc, you are so yesterday! Check it out. There is truly a shift in thinking with regard to the so called Dark Ages. You need to catch up.

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 12:29 AM
Not at all. Other people should avoid trying to rewrite history, in order to suit their agenda.

I'm perfectly comfortable in my camp, and quite grateful that I didn't have to spend my life living under the iron fist of religious ideology.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 11:00 AM
As if it weren't bad enough that recent scholarship has shown that the 'Dark Ages' weren't all that dark, but then we learn it was the monasteries (gasp!) and The Church (double-gasp!!) that kept the intellectual flame ablaze.

A 'double-whammy', as they once said

Bluesky
05-08-2014, 12:16 PM
I'm perfectly comfortable in my camp

This says it all.
It's the majority that has been guilty of revisionist history.
Once Rome fell, civilization took some giant leaps forward. Why? Because the rich elite were not sucking the lower classes dry, and they now had a chance to better their lots.

Another factor - Romans relied on their slaves which made up a significant percentage of their population for their manual labour - thus invention and innovation was not exactly in the ascendancy. Water and wind power were used very little, but by the turn of the first millennium, windmills and watermills were everywhere. In fact, windmills were so numerous that landowners were suing each other in the courts for "blocking the wind" Then followed the mechanized production of woolen cloth.

Dams were built to more efficiently harness water power. Europeans excelled at bridge building.

Agriculture was revolutionized during the "Dark Ages". Production levels increased phenomenally.
The heavy plow was invented. Selective plant breeding was popularized.
Chimneys were invented
Eyeglasses were invented which increased production again with a significant portion of the pop'n
Saddles and stirrups and crossbows didn't exist before the "dark ages". They were invented in Europe and changed the nature of warfare
CAnnons were invented, and Europeans were the first to use gunpowder.

That's only an introduction. There is much more. But I dont have time to do Sock's work... do the research. educate yourself.














.

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 12:28 PM
Anyone who knows anything about history understands that developments in science, medicine, and technology exploded in the Western World, just as soon as the Church influence ebbed, and scientists could do their work without fear of being set on fire or imprisoned for saying things the Church didn't like.

Religious authority stunts intellectual development. It's a fact.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 12:32 PM
Anyone who knows anything about history understands that developments in science, medicine, and technology exploded in the Western World, just as soon as the Church influence ebbed, and scientists could do their work without fear of being set on fire or imprisoned for saying things the Church didn't like.

Religious authority stunts intellectual development. It's a fact.

That is quite historically-ignorant.

You refuse to admit recent scholarship (last quarter century) has proven beyond a doubt the "Dark Ages" were mis-named. You are willfully blind to the evidence (something you accuse Christians of quite a bit, how ironic)

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 12:34 PM
Oh, the Dark Ages were delightful. Plague, religious persecution, famine, war, widespread death and destruction.

What was I thinking?

We should rename it the 'Rainbow Age'!

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 12:51 PM
Plague
the Church caused this?
famine
The Church caused this?
war
The Church caused this?
widespread death and destruction.
The Church caused this?

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 01:00 PM
I was addressing the point of whether or not the Dark Ages were misnamed. Please try to stay focused.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 01:04 PM
I was addressing the point of whether or not the Dark Ages were misnamed. Please try to stay focused.

The Twentieth Century was the bloodiest century in history due to the world wars. Should we re-name it "The Bloody Ages"?

Or... did some positive things happen, too, and the naming of it 'The Bloody Century' would be highly misleading?

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 01:07 PM
You may feel free to rewrite history, in any fashion you please.

The truth, however, will remain.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 01:52 PM
And we can wrap this one up!

Bluesky
05-08-2014, 02:18 PM
Facepalm!

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 02:21 PM
It's still the Dark Ages.

Wait a minute.... nope, hasn't changed. Still the Dark Ages.

Bluesky
05-08-2014, 02:22 PM
like I said, you're already old school. Old schools die hard. And I am older than you are. LOL.

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 02:30 PM
Not old school - real school.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 06:15 PM
Creating a little more current for Sock to swim against ...

Barbarians to Angels: The Dark Ages Reconsidered
by Peter S. Wells (Author)

The barbarians who destroyed the glory that was Rome demolished civilization along with it, and for the next four centuries the peasants and artisans of Europe barely held on. Random violence, mass migration, disease, and starvation were the only ways of life. This is the picture of the Dark Ages that most historians promote. But archaeology tells a different story. Peter Wells, one of the world’s leading archaeologists, surveys the archaeological record to demonstrate that the Dark Ages were not dark at all. The kingdoms of Christendom that emerged starting in the ninth century sprang from a robust, previously little-known European culture, albeit one that left behind few written texts.
http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Angels-Dark-Ages-Reconsidered/dp/0393335399



History of Britain: The Not So Dark Ages | BBC Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8fr133-Fo8



...Medieval scholarship was completely dominated by the church...Education and literacy became available to a wider class of people after the emergence of universities in the 11th century

http://www.heeve.com/middle-ages-history/facts-about-middle-ages.html



The Dark Ages. The thousand years that filled the void from the fall of the Roman Empire to the start of the Renaissance – a period of blood, conflict, destruction, and ignorance...You get the picture.

This is Victorian pseudo-history at its judgmental worst – a tragically emotionalised and simplistic view of the past with all the historical accuracy of Errol Flynn playing Robin Hood. It may have been good enough for a child’s history primer in the mid-1800s, but these days we know it to be wrong in so many key ways.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100259552/why-the-so-called-dark-ages-were-just-as-civilised-as-the-savage-roman-empire/

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 09:25 PM
Plague
the Church caused this?
famine
The Church caused this?
war
The Church caused this?
widespread death and destruction.
The Church caused this?

The crusades?
yep
death penalty for homosexuals
yep
I'm sure there are more
Just because the church may not have been responsible for some things does not negate the things it was responsible for.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 11:26 PM
The crusades?
yep
death penalty for homosexuals
yep
I'm sure there are more
Just because the church may not have been responsible for some things does not negate the things it was responsible for.

Your turn to substantiate that the church CAUSED these things, and connect it to Sock's Dark Ages theory.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 12:20 AM
Your turn to substantiate that the church CAUSED these things, and connect it to Sock's Dark Ages theory.

Don't hold your breath, I'm not going to bother. You are just stalling. a pathetic tactic of yours.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 03:43 AM
Don't hold your breath, I'm not going to bother. You are just stalling. a pathetic tactic of yours.

Typical answer. Sorry.