OK then, in slightly more simplistic terms, if I sin I will be punished. Or, if "a christian" sins s/he will be punished. If s/he does not, s/he will be rewarded.
No, it is not a punishment as established in the OP. Rather, sin in Christianity is important in how it affects one's relationship with God. That's a far cry from God rewarding/punishing per sin.
How is this any different from my original question/observation??
Well, let's take a look at the hypothetical given:You have two children, identical in every way except one (wait for it). Both behave in a manner that any reasonable person would call "good." They tell the truth, show respect to their elders, share, all that good stuff. Here is the difference. Jamie behaves this way because he knows if he does, he'll be rewarded and if he does not, he'll be punnished. Johnny behaves this way because it's the right way to behave.
What do telling the truth, showing respect to elders, and sharing have in common? They all are actions that affect the children's relationships with others.
If Jamie lies to Becky, it hurts his relationship with Becky. If Jamie disrespects his elders, it hurts his relationship with his elders. If Jamie doesn't share with his friends, it hurts his relationship with his friends. These are all negative consequences of these actions.
Johnny also believes these things hurt his relationship with God. This is another negative consequences of Johnny's actions.
If you call Johnny harming his relationship with God a "punishment," then Jamie is also "punished" when he hurts his relationship with Becky, his elders, or his friends. It's therefore illogical to say that Johnny is motivated by punishment but not Jamie; both are harming their relationship with God and others. Jamie and Johnny's disagreement on whether the former exists does not magically make it a punishment.
Then you're just being dishonest. There is nothing loaded about the question, you're simply seeing the consequences of what your answer entails, and refusing to accept it, because of your emotional investment in your beliefs.
You added the assumption of "fear" to a post where it was not assumed, and then asked me a question based on that assumption. "Fear" is no more a consequence of what I posted than "exuberance" or "sorrow" or "orgasmic ecstasy. The fact that you're trying to defend your
straw man of my position while calling me
a liar so you don't have to recant your
loaded question is just... sad, really.
Let me make it absolutely clear to you, for the third time: my post did not assume "fear."
Therefore, I will not make your
assumptions about what I
Are you saying that everyone who has a relationship with God is immune to such feelings?
No, not at all. We have other relationships in our lives besides our relationship with God, and we have our own goals, hopes, and dreams. These things can be upset just as easily in someone with a strong relationship with God as they can in someone who has no relationship with God.
But while that "morality" might not be offical in most xian sects, it is still there so it is a lie. Obvisously it dodges the question because he never even comes close to addressing it. The derailment is in changing the focus of the thread to something very off-topic: "which branches of xianity have that morality?"
Nice try, but no.Boots:
X is in a religion.Mooby:
Which religion? You don't mean Christianity?Boots:
X is in Christianity, specifically Catholicism.Mooby:
There's no evidence that X is in Catholicism.Adzgari:
X is in my father's church.Mooby:
*Assumes Adzgari is talking about the father's Catholic Church in response to his challenge*
But hey, let's play your game.A:
Animals like to snort paprika.B:
Huh? Which animals?A:
I was thinking about mammals. I know some dogs who snort paprika.B:
Actually, here's a book that establishes fairly well that dogs don't
B, my father's pet used to snort paprika.B:
Your father's dog used to snort paprika?C:
Erm, I never said "dog."B:
My bad. I got distracted because A was talking about dogs.
Read B's posts carefully. While snorting paprika might not be official in some animal species, it is still there so it is a lie. Obvisously it dodges the question because B never even comes close to addressing it. The derailment is in changing the focus of the thread to something very off-topic: "which species of animal snort paprika?"
The OP is a bare assertion. We have not established that "it is still there." So far we have established a single anecdotal secondary negatively biased source relating the experience of an ex-member of a single, unnamed, (I assume) Christian church, of which the assertion "was not their emphasis." So how on Earth can you boldly claim, "It is still there so it is a lie?"
Cue me getting reported for "lawyering."