THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
"Christians can sin all they want because all they have to do is admit their sins and they can go back to sinning. What hypocrites!"
This statement might make a good sound bite but makes no sense in light of what Christianity teaches. I've found atheists, despite their claims of knowing Christianity better than Christians, don't seem to know some sins carry more weight than others.
That's right: though all sin is an affront to God, not all sins are equal.
Where in the Bible does it say this?
"All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death."- 1 John 5:17
So what can be inferred from this? We know all sin offends God, but by the way the verse is phrased, we know there is sin that will lead to death, but that implies there must be sin that doesn't lead to death.
If that sounds confusing, consider this: jaywalking and murder are both crimes, but which is the more serious of the two?
Now, one has to understand 100% what I just said in order to understand this next part:
The mistake atheists make (besides denying sin exists in the first place) is they see people sinning, they see them confess their sin, and then foolishly believe that's that.
Imagine this scenario: suppose for a moment I threw a brick at your window and you saw me throw the brick, or failing that you have security footage of me throwing the brick. You then confront me about it. Now, I can choose whether or not to confess, and clearly admitting to it is better then trying to deny it. So I admit to throwing the brick.
What's missing in this story? What's the critical point 99.999% of atheists miss?
Me confessing to the crime doesn't change the fact the window is still broken. This is where a concept called restitution comes in.
So, think of confession like this: me breaking the window is the sin, me admitting to breaking the window is the confession, the owner forgiving me is the absolution, and me paying to replace it is the restitution.
It is the omission of the last one that makes the atheism claim pure nonsense.
Now you may ask what brought this particular mental experiment on. I was arguing with an atheist (yeah, yeah, I know…when will I ever learn that atheists don't understand much of anything?) who brought up the film Don Jon.
For those of you not familiar with the movie, it involves a man addicted to adult entertainment who confesses his sin every week but goes right back to doing it. The atheist then thought this was typical of all religious people. I of course pointed out several things wrong with his thinking:
1. Not every religion has a means to remove sin from a person's soul.
2. It's clear the main character is of a faith that does teach this.
3. The character's attitude towards it is not the attitude someone is supposed to have.
4. The movie doesn't portray him making restitution for his sins.
5. Doesn't he learn to give up that junk and learn to have a real relationship with a woman by the end?
(Spoiler: yes, he does.)
Funny, isn't it, how an atheist can leave out important information, then back themselves on the back for saying something they think is endlessly intelligent?
Clearly, the arrogance was strong in that one and yet another example of how atheists are idiots.