Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

genuine question from atheist - view on Christanity and personal responsibility

999 replies

kentishgirl · 21/03/2014 11:26

Hi - promise this isn't just Christian-baiting.

I've come to the conclusion that Christianity is a substitute for having a personal conscience or taking personal responsibility. Being a Christian is like having a 'get out of jail free card' in that you are taught God will forgive you anything. So you can do anything, as bad as you like, go and pray for forgiveness and move on, slate wiped clean, feeling great about yourself. So it doesn't matter if you do wrong. As an atheist, if I do something wrong, it's always with me, it's always on my conscience, so that makes me always try to do the right thing.
I didn't always think this way. It's the only way I can make any sense of something that happened to me at the hands of a couple of serious, committed Christians. One of them even works full time for a church. They did something terrible to me but have shown no remorse, no guilt, and made no attempt to make things right with me. I'm positive they prayed for guidance at the time and then forgiveness afterwards, and now all's good in their world, while I'm still dealing with the fall-out.
Am I really wrong in interpreting Christianity in this way? Isn't it true that it enables horrible behaviour by teaching you that if you do wrong, all you've got to do is pray for forgiveness afterwards, and you are ok, never mind the effect of what you did? Basically if God is your only judge, and forgiveness is guaranteed, it gives you permission to act like a right bastard as long as you say sorry to God afterwards? there's no personal responsibility for what you have done.

OP posts:
126sticks · 03/04/2014 17:20

What about if he just stopped Satan from actively pushing people into doing evil?

Dont know the answer to that one. If someone does, please let me know.

That would be ideal as far as I am concerned.

S will be overcome at the end. But for some reason, God wants a whole lot of people saved first.

We as christians, pray in the Lords Prayer "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done".
Genuine christians are doing their part. It is non christians that may not be doing theirs. Some of them are actively rejecting him and worse.

The way I read Revelation, is that God is waiting for a certain number of people to be saved. And when that number has been reached, then Armegedon.

126sticks · 03/04/2014 17:29

Examples
I may have liked to dabble in drugs. Probably would have tried to get drunk.

Would have thought iller of people, wouldnt have been so sociable, in short, would have pleased myself a heck of a lot more.
Oh, yes, and done some occasional swearing.

Will that list do you? Grin

I am gertting carried away now. May have done some petty shoplifting, would have let myself off the leash.
Would have talked back at my parents.

atthestrokeoftwelve · 03/04/2014 18:35

126sticks - so you are suggesting that athiests are selfish?

126sticks · 03/04/2014 18:55

Not sure if that is a trick question or not.
I will presume not, so shall answer.

In my case, without question, I would be more selfish.

In fact, thinking about it, I suspect that all cristians would be quite a lot more selfish if they were not christians. What would they have to lose?

Are atheists selfish? Yes. We all are. Christains and non christians. Of course we are.

atthestrokeoftwelve · 03/04/2014 19:03

So you think that athiests are more selfish than christians.

It's not a trick question just comes back to the idea that christians see themselves having a greater moral attenuation than the rest of us: athiests, or those also misguided enough to follow a religion other than christianity.

126sticks · 03/04/2014 19:08

what do you mean by attenuation?
I have googled it, but dont understand what it means.

Also, christians are not allowed to judge non christians. And I dont think, not even christians either really.

atthestrokeoftwelve · 03/04/2014 19:13

I mean as in having a higher sense or morality if you like. You suggest that christians think more of others than athiests do- "in short, would have pleased myself a heck of a lot more."- suggesting that athiests are selfish.

126sticks · 03/04/2014 20:03

I had a look at the definition of morality.
Definitions seem to vary a lot on that.

All depends on an individuals meaning of morality I suppose.

And no. Just because I would have thrown a lot of caution to the wind, doesnt necessarily mean others would.

BigDorrit · 03/04/2014 20:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

126sticks · 03/04/2014 20:33

Not going to fall for the trick questions Grin

Too long in the tooth on here for that.

atthestrokeoftwelve · 03/04/2014 20:52

No trick questions here.

BackOnlyBriefly · 03/04/2014 21:07

Some of them are actively rejecting him and worse.

Obviously I don't believe god exists, but if he did and was as described by the bible and some Christians then I would reject him for being immoral. By today's standards he'd be in prison and on the sex offenders list. Possibly on trail at Nuremberg for genocide.

In fact I think that those who dreamed him up were themselves immoral and therefore made a god who acted as they would have liked to.

The best you can say about his followers nowadays is that they mostly don't believe in him. They make up their own version of god with their own rules and believe in that instead.

Contemplates · 03/04/2014 23:00

BackOnlyBriefly I always feel a little sickened when people speak of good coming from suffering.
I am in possession of many medically related books about dealing with chronic and incurable illnesses; cancer, disability, that sort of thing. In these books, advice is given from a psychological perspective, to help people deal with these sort of blows. The opening paragraph usually contains some quote about the grief process and “finding the good” in (and despite) the physical and psychological suffering. This material is based on the grief process and using CBT and mindfulness to find meaning and purpose, rather than giving up. It’s all from a secular, medical viewpoint, and not written by theists. So if medical professionals recognise that finding the good in a bad situation is a powerful tool, I wouldn’t be so ready to knock it.

Having said that, when a person is currently experiencing their struggles, they often want to kick out against it in frustration, anger, and sadness, and the idea of trying to consider a positive viewpoint is probably, in the first instance, the last thing on their mind and met with a great deal of resistance.

This is an example of things people have said to me though usually people are not keen on spelling it out.??'I used to be quite selfish but it made me think of others when I saw this small child die in agony. So god did a good thing there killing that child slowly and painfully didn't he'??I think that good coming from suffering caused by god is reason enough on its own to despise religion.
God doesn’t cause the suffering and pain that we experience. He has compassion and empathy, which means that He endures it with us. The bible makes no secret of this, and there is an account in the bible where “Jesus wept” with other people mourning.

What about if he just stopped Satan from actively pushing people into doing evil?
You’re forgetting that these events happened long before you and I appeared, and will continue long after we are departed.

In a very quick overview, we read in the bible that satan was an angel who had free will just like everyone else. However he decided that he wanted more power than God, and “turned” for want of a better word. The long term battle began, with satan deceiving Adam and Eve, and the introduction of evil to humankind. Choice, choice, choice.
God chose to allow us all (satan included) freedom of choice, and although the spiritual wars rage on, there will be a day when God defeats satan. But it will be in HIS timing, not your or mine. Remember God has the view of the big picture, we only have the view of our short time on this earth. If God stopped satan when we decided he should, our world would be perfect now, wouldn’t it? But we have been warned that it once was perfect, and is no longer, not in this short life on earth. Things changed in the Garden of Eden. However there is a promise of a hopeful future.
If God defeated satan in our timing and not His, the war would end tonight. But that would mean we’re God and not Him! It’s His fight and not ours. He has the wisdom and knowledge that we lack, so it seems futile to try and tell Him how to run his own affairs. Back to the analogy of telling a brain surgeon how to do his 12 hour operation. I don’t have that expertise so no point in trying to pretend I do.

You might risk a child falling off a bike in order for them to learn to ride, but would you really pay some guy to run alongside shoving them off and say that was an essential part of free will? God doesn’t pay satan to destroy people. In fact, He says he has come to “seek and save that which is lost”, and that HE offers healing and restoration. The “destroyer” of our souls is predicted to lose the battle in the end. But the battle isn’t just of this world, that’s a very small part of the big picture.

BigDorrit
Strange how your god so often helps rich people in wealthy countries with trivial matters, but so rarely helps the poor and starving in third world countries with minor things like food and water.
Your photo banner is not a balanced picture at all. There are very contented people in the third world that believe they have been tremendously helped by God in some way, and equally there are people with great riches who know the cliché is true; that money might pay the bills but doesn’t really make you deeply satisfied or happy. And there are countless rich westerners who would profess that God didn’t help them, in their opinion, because they suffered hardship or felt things hadn’t gone according to plan.

God does not favour the rich. The bible is quite clear about that.

Job 34:17-19 speaks of how God “shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?”
Luke 4:17-19
‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’
?
I would also say that people who think God is cruel and evil have not read the bible in it's correct context. We all know it is possible to twist meanings to suit an agenda, but the safest way to avoid this with the bible is to look at who is talking, what they are talking about, and who they are talking to. Context. Knowing the accurate word translations using bible thesaurus also helps.

Contemplates · 03/04/2014 23:01

BackOnlyBriefly I always feel a little sickened when people speak of good coming from suffering.
I am in possession of many medically related books about dealing with chronic and incurable illnesses; cancer, disability, that sort of thing. In these books, advice is given from a psychological perspective, to help people deal with these sort of blows. The opening paragraph usually contains some quote about the grief process and “finding the good” in (and despite) the physical and psychological suffering. This material is based on the grief process and using CBT and mindfulness to find meaning and purpose, rather than giving up. It’s all from a secular, medical viewpoint, and not written by theists. So if medical professionals recognise that finding the good in a bad situation is a powerful tool, I wouldn’t be so ready to knock it.

Having said that, when a person is currently experiencing their struggles, they often want to kick out against it in frustration, anger, and sadness, and the idea of trying to consider a positive viewpoint is probably, in the first instance, the last thing on their mind and met with a great deal of resistance.

This is an example of things people have said to me though usually people are not keen on spelling it out.??'I used to be quite selfish but it made me think of others when I saw this small child die in agony. So god did a good thing there killing that child slowly and painfully didn't he'??I think that good coming from suffering caused by god is reason enough on its own to despise religion.
God doesn’t cause the suffering and pain that we experience. He has compassion and empathy, which means that He endures it with us. The bible makes no secret of this, and there is an account in the bible where “Jesus wept” with other people mourning.

What about if he just stopped Satan from actively pushing people into doing evil?
You’re forgetting that these events happened long before you and I appeared, and will continue long after we are departed.

In a very quick overview, we read in the bible that satan was an angel who had free will just like everyone else. However he decided that he wanted more power than God, and “turned” for want of a better word. The long term battle began, with satan deceiving Adam and Eve, and the introduction of evil to humankind. Choice, choice, choice.
God chose to allow us all (satan included) freedom of choice, and although the spiritual wars rage on, there will be a day when God defeats satan. But it will be in HIS timing, not your or mine. Remember God has the view of the big picture, we only have the view of our short time on this earth. If God stopped satan when we decided he should, our world would be perfect now, wouldn’t it? But we have been warned that it once was perfect, and is no longer, not in this short life on earth. Things changed in the Garden of Eden. However there is a promise of a hopeful future.

If God defeated satan in our timing and not His, the war would end tonight. But that would mean we’re God and not Him! It’s His fight and not ours. He has the wisdom and knowledge that we lack, so it seems futile to try and tell Him how to run his own affairs. Back to the analogy of telling a brain surgeon how to do his 12 hour operation. I don’t have that expertise so no point in trying to pretend I do.

You might risk a child falling off a bike in order for them to learn to ride, but would you really pay some guy to run alongside shoving them off and say that was an essential part of free will?
God doesn’t pay satan to destroy people. In fact, He says he has come to “seek and save that which is lost”, and that HE offers healing and restoration. The “destroyer” of our souls is predicted to lose the battle in the end. But the battle isn’t just of this world, that’s a very small part of the big picture.

BigDorrit
Strange how your god so often helps rich people in wealthy countries with trivial matters, but so rarely helps the poor and starving in third world countries with minor things like food and water.
Your photo banner is not a balanced picture at all. There are very contented people in the third world that believe they have been tremendously helped by God in some way, and equally there are people with great riches who know the cliché is true; that money might pay the bills but doesn’t really make you deeply satisfied or happy. And there are countless rich westerners who would profess that God didn’t help them, in their opinion, because they suffered hardship or felt things hadn’t gone according to plan.

God does not favour the rich. The bible is quite clear about that.

Job 34:17-19 speaks of how God “shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?”
Luke 4:17-19
‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’
?
I would also say that people who think God is cruel and evil have not read the bible in it's correct context. We all know it is possible to twist meanings to suit an agenda, but the safest way to avoid this with the bible is to look at who is talking, what they are talking about, and who they are talking to. Context. Knowing the accurate word translations using bible thesaurus also helps.

atthestrokeoftwelve · 04/04/2014 07:08

It was just Eve who was deceived though- and therefore her to blame for mankind's downfall.
Adam had been put on earth fist and did not succumb.
It took a woman to gain the "knowledge" ( what a dreadful thing that must be) and Adam was stupid enough to trust her. They were both punished, but it is woman that bears the burden of original sin, and indeed has her own specific punishment-""To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.'"
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13–14)

It's quite clear that the blame lies with women, and is part of the reason that the most churches will not allow women preists- they can never reach the godhead because the colluded with satan to bring down perfect man.

capsium · 04/04/2014 07:48

atthestroke

??? Adam certainly did succumb! He ate the apple too. Maybe Adam could have prevented Eve from eating the apple. It only took Eve and her actions to tempt Adam. Whereas Eve was tempted by Satan.

In this account they could have eaten from any tree but the (forbidden) Tree of Knowledge. They could have eaten from the Tree of Life. However they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Knowledge without good (God) ethics is dangerous. Doing what God has forbidden is not good, hence is it sin because they went against God.

There were consequences for this sin for both Adam and Eve, not just Eve.

niminypiminy · 04/04/2014 07:48

atthestrokeoftwelve, I know you are not a Christian but do have some ignorant and fanatical fundamentalist Christians in your family, so perhaps you have picked up your ideas from them. Here are some alternative views.

It is not true that 'most churches' will not allow women priests, and those who don't ordain women do so for one of two reasons (either they are following the 'man is head of the woman' line or the 'Jesus was a man and so no woman can represent him' line), neither of which has anything to do with women reaching the godhead. But I recall that you have been told this many times on this board, and yet you still trot it out.

Paul's interpretation of Genesis 2-3 has been very influential, it's true, but it is not the only possible interpretation of that text, and nowadays many people reject it. If you go back to the Hebrew you will see that 'adam' is not in fact gendered at all, it means something like 'earth creature', and only becomes gendered at the creation of woman. So the two sexes come into being together.

There is no textual support for the idea that woman tempted man. She speaks to the serpent, but she doesn't actually say anything to Adam - and they both eat the fruit. Feminist biblical scholars have seen this as Eve's superior intellect -- she is the one who questions both God and the servant, while Adam stays dumbly silent, and simply eats.

Finally, both Adam and Eve have burdens once they leave Eden. Eve suffers in childbirth, and Adam has to raise food from the ground by hard manual labour. Rather than seeing these as a special punishment, it is just as plausible to say that the story of Gen. 2-3 is a story about how we got to the situation where we are now where we make good and bad choices, where we work and suffer and die. Eastern Orthodox theologians don't see this as the entry of sin into the world, but as humankind 'falling out' with God, and having to grow up I find this a more compelling understanding than the western tradition of the fall.

capsium · 04/04/2014 07:51

atthestroke Personally I think the enmity between men and women is inevitable as they have blamed Eve in a similar fashion to what you have. In Christ men and women are equal.

capsium · 04/04/2014 08:24

Also the men needed to not blindly trust the women (outside of God's will) and allow themselves to be led astray, so the enmity makes sense.

atthestrokeoftwelve · 04/04/2014 08:37

nimby you may think I have some ignorant and fanatical chrsitians in my family, but I can assure you that they "know" they have the truth every bit as well as you feel that you do.

My sister is a pastor, knows the bible inside out, loves god with every fibre of her being yet you claim that your version of christianity is somehow superior to hers.
Can't you see the irony?

What gives you the authority to dismiss her version of christianity and claim yours as the right one?

That seems a highly arrogant stance.

niminypiminy · 04/04/2014 08:45

I beg your pardon, atthestrokeoftwelve, for labelling your sister's faith in the way I did. I based my judgement on what you have said about her, however.

I am certainly not claiming that my version of Christianity is the right one, though, and you do me an injustice to say that I am dismissing her views. I hope I am not being arrogant to say that there are other readings of these biblical texts. My post was giving an alternative view of Gen 2-3 one that is based on mainstream biblical scholarship from the one that you gave in your post. My argument, if you want to put it like that, is not with your sister (who, after all, is not posting on this board), but with your views.

Contemplates · 04/04/2014 08:54

atthestrokeoftwelve Fri 04-Apr-14 07:08:50
It was just Eve who was deceived though- and therefore her to blame for mankind's downfall. ?Adam had been put on earth fist and did not succumb.?

What you’re describing is the Genesis account in chapter 3. However, if you back up a little to verse 4, you will see that satan deceived Eve, who fell for it FIRST, and then in turn deceived Adam. SO both were deceived.

This is what I mean by reading the whole bible accurately and in context so you get the interpretation that is correct.

atthestrokeoftwelve · 04/04/2014 08:57

Yes both were downfallen, but Eve colluded with Satan- Adam did trust her after all, so must take the bigger burden.

niminypiminy · 04/04/2014 09:07

I just don't agree with this reading of the text. I don't agree that they were downfallen or deceived. I think Eve makes a decision -- if you like, a theological decision.

The serpent says 'you will be like God, knowing good and evil' (v5); and Eve sees that the tree 'was to be desired to make one wise [and] took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.' (v6) So Eve makes a decision, a choice, to know good and evil, and sees that as wisdom, and she and her husband eat.

Then, only later, when they are called to account by God, does the idea of deception come in. And neither Adam nor Eve comes very well out of this conversation. Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent. Both of them have some growing up to do, because the what happens when you make choices for yourself about good and evil is that you have to take the consequences. And, as we all know, taking the consequences of our actions is rarely pleasant. So they have to leave Eden, and start out a life of labour. And they are bound together, they have to bear the consequences together.

capsium · 04/04/2014 09:15

atthestroke But why are you arguing about the correct interpretation of something you do not believe anyway?

If you believe god is a human construct, why would you prefer that construct to be an unkind one? If we are talking about human constructs cannot individuals have ownership over their own constructs?

As I said to head.

I suspect from an atheist perspective, no construct is satisfactory. However anything that is revered, or regarded as being of utmost importance can become as a 'god' in a belief / value system... money.... power.... fame.... intellectual prowess. That is, a whole value and belief system can be built around whatever is revered. So the presence of human construct remains, as part of the nature of humanity. It follows that even atheists are not immune...

So atthestroke what do you revere?