1) What is the character of the cheater/gossiper vs. the serial killer?

2) Based upon the character in question, how much will and work needs to be done to repent of the mind/heart/character traits which fuel the sinful behavior?

For a short answer, I think the mind/character which leads to serial killing is a harder one to repent of than gossipping and cheating.

Although repentance is required of the latter two.

I can’t believe I’m having this conversation…

I’ll indignantly note that you brought up “The Avengers” in a theological context, not me.

But that’s not what I argued. That is, I didn’t argue that when agnostics appropriate the term atheist they are committed to saying dogs are atheists as well. Rather, I pointed out that the rationale commonly provided for calling oneself an atheist would entail that dogs were also atheists.

Here’s the relevant excerpt from the original essay. I have boldfaced the relevant portions:

“But today people have taken to calling themselves atheists simply because, as it is commonly said, they “lack belief in gods”. In other words, agnostics now call themselves atheists.

“I offer three reasons why they should refrain from this confusing practice.

“Reason 1: By this logic my Maltese/Shih Tzu (AKA Maltzu) is now an atheist.”

Note that I didn’t directly deal with people who offer some defense of expanding the term atheist to encompass agnostics. Rather, my target was people who reason that “lacking belief in God” is sufficient to be called an atheist, full stop. If a person reasoned in that way (as many “atheists” I’ve spoken with have), viz. “I don’t believe there is no God. I just lack belief in God, and therefore I’m an atheist.” then it would follow that my Maltzu was an atheist too.

So your spirited defense of atheistic agnostics misses the point of the original intent of the first argument.

And you most likely target atheism a lot in your blog because you perceive it to currently be the greatest threat to the Christian faith–at least in your locality. If a large portion of Canada’s population began converting to Islam, you would likely begin shifting your focus more onto it as a serious growing threat that needs to be challenged.

If a hallmark of a disciple of Jesus is one who loves his/her neighbor as much as himself/herself, it is hard to imagine that a person who does not have the ability to love in this way is a Christian in any recognizable sense.

If all you know about a person is that they were beat up or crucified by others then that provides prima facie excellent evidence that they are not divine. In this case a skeptical Hulk beating up Loki would parallel a skeptical centurion beating Jesus. Both would have reason to believe the person was not divine.

However, the resurrection proves our assumptions wrong in this case. In principle it is possible that being beat up by the Hulk could also be part of a story of divine kenosis, but I’d want to see the evidence before I’ll believe it.

There are many other similar passages. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul writes: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Just focus on one of these: slanderers. I’ve known many Christian gossips over the years. (I’d tell you who they are but then I’d be one of them.) And truth be known, virtually all Christians have a tendency to gossip and they don’t always repent when they do. Does that make most Christians slanderers such that they will not inherit the kingdom? I do know that these passages should worry us a lot more than they do.