Addressing a Conservative Christian's Moral Motivations

She said 

"somehow becoming a better person only gives temporary satisfaction at best. It does nothing to address past sins. It certainly does nothing for eternity."
---
My thoughts on this:

Becoming a better person yields great benefits; for the remainder of a person's lifetime.

It fully addresses and resolves all past transgressions, because then we literally aren't that same person anymore.

And no one from our past can justify saying we are.

If they wouldn't let us pay on old debt, then that's like any debtor refusing to accept payment. The debt no longer exits.

They can't refuse amends and then say we still owe them.

They can't refuse ~restorative justice~ and then still justify a grudge over lack of justice.

They can't refuse healing and then rightly complain for lack of healing.

If a former victim regards hate as more empowering than peace, their blanket of hate becomes theirs alone. It becomes an expression of only their dysfunction; no longer also an expression of the originally wrong's person's evils.

As for eternity, if "block time" (non-tensed time) turns out to be the true nature of time (which it probably is), then:

every day of our life is eternal.

So then the way to make the remainder of our eternal time-slots good, is to seek understanding, peace, and healing; which must include forgiving others, offering amends to others, and forgiving our own selves.

But even if every moment is fleeting, 
these are still worthwhile goals.

No one truly knows if there is a next life, or an eternal afterlife.

Even if we assume (or intuit,  or deduce) that there is a next life, ...

 Religious beliefs are no more likely to get us a great one, than worrying about which way we hang the toilette paper in our bathrooms. 

 Either way, making the most of the only life we can be objectively certain of ... requires being the 
best person we can be; because it will determine how healthy and rewarding our relationships can be; including the relationship we have with our own self.
--

We don't really need a parental figure to do that for us.
Rationally, ethically, they can't.
A responsible parent wouldn't even want to.

Growing up
means learning to do these things for our selves.

A good parent wants their children to outgrow their dependencies.

Prager never outgrew his.

Because of the damage to his psyche his parents and church surely caused, ...

He's still a child;
a man-baby.

So he imagines everyone else is too.

So then, he argues we all need a larger-than-life "father" to use his power/authority, ...

to instill fear,
by threatening us with extremely abusive punishments (which Prager can't even recognize as abuse),

and offering (only through rumors) 
equally ridiculous rewards.

He's exploiting un-matured people's childish desire for paradental approval and validation.

But it's even worse than that.
Because, for people like Prager, he uses that narrative, and those behavioral mechanisms, ... to selfishly leverage and exploit power over the lives of others.

And the more he succeeds, the more it boosts his narcissistic ego, because his sense of relative worth is based on his relative position of power in his social and societal hierarchies.

That's also what excuses him from the compassion he can't feel, and can just barely bother to fake, because:

his power and luxury are seen as the natural result and ~proof~ of his "choosing to be great" and being the stronger animal in a dangerous jungle.

That means the people at the bottom have sorted themselves out as people who belong down there;
- else the disadvantaged people would have seen their adversity as a challenge ... and risen to meet those challenges.

That way, Prager can justify thinking it would be wrong to help the disadvantaged; beyond some token temporary help just barely surviving;
-a very literal interpretation
of "let the dead bury the dead".