A confusing disparity.

[Subfallen]

Peter666, "If I could have lots of sex with loose women, murder all my enemies and get cleared by 'believing in Jesus' rather than having to be truly sorry and changing my life, I would." (Emphasis mine.)

bills217, "Let me add to that a little. If anyone had ever made a compelling case to me that there was no God and/or Jesus was not His Son, I would drop Christianity LIKE A BAD HABIT. Speaking only for me personally, it is either true, or it is an incredible curse."

This bewilders me. I have always understood the very essence of Christianity to be a transformation including the substitution of spiritual appetites for carnal desires. How can one simultaneously profess Christianity AND admit a basic preference for the attractions of the world? To bills, I ask: what more compelling case against Christianity could be made than your own incorrigible heart?

For example, contrast the spirit of the above quotes with this selection:

Kierkegaard, "But the person who perceived that he was not capable of the least thing without God, unable even to be happy about the most happy event---he is closer to perfection. And the person who understood this and found no pain whatsoever in it but only the overabundance of bliss, who hid no secret desire that still preferred to be happy on its own account, felt no shame that people noticed that he himself was capable of nothing at all, laid down no conditions to God, not even that his weakness be kept concealed from others, but in whose heart joy constantly prevailed by his, so to speak, jubilantly throwing himself into God's arms in unspeakable amazement at God, who is capable of all things---indeed, he would be the perfect one whom the Apostle Paul describes better and more briefly: he 'boasts of his weakness' and has not even had experiences so numerous and ambiguous that he knows how to express himself more profusely." (Four Upbuilding Discourses, Copenhagen, 1844 [Emphasis mine.])

Who is right?