Ghatzige,
There are whole books written addressing what you are flinging at me. Why don’t you go read one of them? Because you don’t like that you can’t argue against my actual replies to the sparce on-topic pieces of your comments?
I advise you to do the same. I have read many books, especially for the first period of Christianity.
What are your replies on the on-topic comments that I have not responded? I talked about the golden rule, the “moral intuition of a good being”, the New and Old Testament God’s “morally acceptable” actions. Every time I demonstrate the subjective nature of Christian morality you add another issue and I address it. You are the one who claimed that my arguments are addressable, but you have not provided a single answer.
At least answer this: Is it true or not that in Christianity every sin is forgiven as long as you repend in front of the God? And if yes, then how can you claim absolute morality and golden rule for Christianity?
translates to:
I replied with:
I answered your objection(s):
Um, no… it’s the other way around, but I stay on topic.
To your dirty laundry list, I replied:
Y’got nuthin (and you know it… because you are a sock muppet).
But I’ll humor your last request, since it is a repeat…and I have been classically trained (jk, but srsly) not to ignore a repeat…as they are usually genuine:
You are re-putting your earlier question:
You don’t like the answer I gave (to your dirty laundry list), which is understandable. So I’ll zero/dial in.
Where in bloody heck is any of that found in Scripture? Here is the relevant Scripture my brain counters that baloney with:
(You gotta be doing this on purpose… I’m such a sucker.)
If there was ONLY ONE rule, it would be Love the Lord your God with all your heart, …. yada yada yada. But Jesus says the other is like it. Love your neighbor as yourself (the royal law, an OT version of the golden rule). Why is it like it? Because we are made in God’s image. That’s why the King says what we do/don’t do to each other, we do/don’t do to him. So the Golden Rule is the sum of the Law & the Prophets (the OT).
The Bible doesn’t say only repent/confess to God (disclaimer: this is not an attempt to justify the doctrine of Catholic confession to priests). Note those are two different things. Repentance is doing a 180 degree turn from prioritizing crap to loving self/others (persons) the way God (original personhood) loves. Confession means you don’t keep truth to yourself, but … ok fine, they’re the same. But two kinds of Scripture passages are relevant. 1) Stuff like “drop the ritual and go make things right between each other” and 2) the “don’t bogart that love” verses.
Caveat: An exception would obviously be if you victimized someone and it would violate their boundaries (or a restraining order) to confess/repent intentionally within their unwilling awareness.
You want an index of relevant verses, say please. And consider asking Copilot 
You said: “You can commit all sorts of crimes and still reach heaven after rependance.”
God will not be mocked… that ain’t repentance. You keep doing stuff that violates personhood — IN WHAT WAY are you “saved”? It self-destructs (it’s hell/delusion). Heaven is heaven because folks are free of that sort of delusion…free to love like God loves. As far as they are able to seek and receive it.
There’re still gonna be knuckleheads, considering God is omnipresent and everywhere he is is heaven. Oblivion is inside the knuckleheads just like the kingdom of heaven is inside the ones who seek and receive (and give) God’s golden rule love.
You are free to keep missing the point, but is that really free, sockmuppet?
also relevant to the original post
When Jesus on the cross said to the thief that he is going to be with him on paradise. The thief never apologized to his victims. That is your scripture.
Ought implies can.
And I explained that free will can bé explained without the presence of God.
Irrelevant. The question wasn’t about free will (to love), but why the GR is able to be violated. Free will is the answer, not the question. Love requires choice.
But you’re also wrong that we’d be free without God. God grounds all of anything that lasts.
Then it is not absolute morality. Free will in that case justifies subjectivism, not Christian morality.
Thanks for making my point stronger.
Choose the absolute (life… love), you fool.
That means live it.
I guess calling someone fool is also part of Christian ethics. Thanks for the reminder.
There are worse things. Like remaining a fool.
But I did reply to that:
At this point I guess all that has left are insults. If you cannot speak in a mature way without insulting the other person, there is no point continuing this discussion.
duuuuuuude… who’s up for round 
rage mute
rage unmute
See also:
rage mute back
oh ****
it’s also the existential fallacy
in a roundabout way (subject to revision)
ok to require import (demonstration)
not ok to just assume it
i believe Kierkegaard meant “Subjectivity is Soundness*
unmute
Time and time again in this forum I and other people have explained that subjectivism allows the formation of common ethics/morals in societies that many people respect. If it is beneficial for me, I can follow a common rule. The golden rule is easily accepted as beneficial from the majority of people. And it has been adopted by non-christian societies (Confucius said it earlier). Your claim that only Christianity guarantees it is unfounded.
However, you continue the apologetics tactics: oversimplification of a philosophy because only with this way you can discredit it. Nice try, but do not get in rage mode when someone does the same with your Scriptures.