genuine question from atheist - view on Christanity and personal responsibility

[kentishgirl]

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.

niminypiminy
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.
It is not possible she could have used that as a reason to rebel, but it doesn't take away from the fact that she went against the one and only request God made. There was plenty of fruit to eat everywhere else, there was no need to fall for it. Except that, like satan, she wanted to be elevated to an equal status with God. And made a poor choice because of it.

Then, only later, when they are called to account by God, does the idea of deception come in.
If you back up a bit to chapter 2, you see that God gave his very explicit instructions about the tree. There was no room for doubt. It wasn't a vague "I wouldn't suggest it, Adam", it was clear. If you eat of this fruit everything changes and your body will then decay and die. Then in chapter 3 satan is described as a crafty deceiver, placing doubt in their minds of God's reason for instructing them to leave the fruit of the tree well alone.

BigDorrit
Actually, according to this bible that you keep referring to as if it was accepted by all that it was fact, Satan did not deceive Adam and Eve, he actually told them the truth, that they would gain knowledge. It was Yahweh who lied to them and told them they'd die.

But they clearly did die. As do we all. Surely you aren't disputing that, are you?

BigDorrit, yes you make a good point about the difference between the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and JWHW/God saying that if Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 'in that day you shall die'. (2.17)

I think I would understand this differently, however. JWHW does not insist that Adam and Eve die once they have eaten the fruit, but commutes the punishment, as it were, to banishment. It's a story about JHWH's mercy.

I'm not talking about the Bible as if it was accepted by all as a fact, it's quite clear that I am talking about it as a story -- for me, the central story, the most important story, a story that tells us important truths about who God is, but still a story.

And, as Capsium so rightly says, if you don't believe in any of this stuff, why are you bothering to contest my views about it? If God's a construct, why are you so keen to have that construct be a cruel and hateful one rather than a loving and merciful one?

BigDorrit

I think you're actually worshipping the wrong one; The evil one, Yahweh, got all his cronies to write a book and create a church, whereas the good one, Lucifer (light bringer), wanted to let mankind learn and find their own way.

So do you worship / recommend worshipping Lucifer then? Are you this kind of (extreme) humanist?

Contemplates, I think we have different readings of the text. For a start, I don't identify the serpent with Satan there is no textual evidence for this, it is based on Paul's interpretation of the story. I am drawing my reading of the text from feminist theologians who have shown that there are different ways of reading this passage, and different truths that we can learn from it. The Hebrew suggests, for example, that death doesn't enter the world because Adam and Eve eat the fruit of knowledge, but that this is a punishment that is commuted to banishment death already exists, Adam and Eve were never immortal and didn't become mortal because of what happened in ch 3.

BigDorrit
I think you're actually worshipping the wrong one; The evil one, Yahweh, got all his cronies to write a book and create a church, whereas the good one, Lucifer (light bringer), wanted to let mankind learn and find their own way.

The purpose of God is to tell people the truth and lead people to salvation and is motivated by love.
Following God you experience the “fruits of the Spirit”: joy, peace, goodness, faithfulness gentleness and self-control which leads to freedom from sin (Galatians 5: 22-23).

The purpose of satan is to tell people lies and lead people into rebellion and destruction and is motivated by hate.
Following satan you experience impurity, idolatry, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits or rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, envy, all manner of unchecked, unbridled, wrong-doing which leads to enslavement of sin (Galatians 5: 19-21). In short, everything you see on the Jeremy Kyle show and more.

Why would you want to worship someone who hates you and seeks to destroy you?

And what did that knowledge, of good and evil, bring? Shame and deception, that's what. Adam and Eve knew their sin, in going against God, who loved them, and hid.

BigDorrit
The implication was that they'd die straight away.

How did you reach that assumption?

If you are in the hospital and a doctor says you have cancer and will die from it, there is no implication that you will die straight away. And you wouldn't be wise to assume that unless you were told otherwise.

God didn't say immediately. In fact, he went on to say they will live in hardship now that the purity has been contaminated with sin. That isn't saying they will die straight away. Quite the opposite.

BigDorrit Ah, I see you've made that pretty clear. Safe to say we disagree, no amount of marketing would make me want to follow Lucifer...I belong to Christ.

In other words, BigDorrit, you won't listen to anything that I or any other Christian has to say, because you have already decided that it is all wrong. That's dogmatism -- and it's dogmatism that is as intolerant, in its own way, as that of the church you despise. (I would argue that the church you despise has little actual relationship to the reality of the church, but what would be the point? You would never listen.)

niminypiminy Fri 04-Apr-14 10:05:04
Contemplates, I think we have different readings of the text. For a start, I don't identify the serpent with Satan -- there is no textual evidence for this, it is based on Paul's interpretation of the story.

You are correct when you say that account in Genesis does not mention the name or title “satan,” however, we can ascertain who this serpent was (or rather who was controlling and speaking through this serpent) from other passages of the bible, and from the context of Genesis 3 itself.

Ezekiel 28:13 states that the being addressed (lucifer/satan) was listed as being in Eden, the Garden of God. If this passage is talking about satan, then there is a clear reference to Satan being in the Garden of Eden. Since satan was a created being, and since Eden was guarded by cherubim after the Fall, he must have been in Eden between his creation and the Fall of man.
Secondly, Satan is called a serpent, not once but three times in the book of Revelation (Revelation 12:9, 12:15, 20:2). When combined with Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 11:3, the identification of the serpent in Genesis 3 with Satan is unmistakable.
We see an obvious parallel here with Genesis 3. Revelation 12:9 says that satan is called “that serpent of old,” that he was punished (cast out), and that he presently deceives the whole world (remember that Adam and Eve were even the “whole world” of humanity at the time of the Fall). Revelation 20:2–3 also calls satan a serpent and speaks of his punishment again. This time he will be bound and thrown into the bottomless pit for 1,000 years, so that he will not be able to deceive the nations.

Satan’s work of deception began in the Garden of Eden and has continued worldwide ever since then. Only Christians can escape Satan’s deceptions by simple and pure devotion to Christ (i.e., trusting and obeying His Word by His Spirit).

No matter BigDorrit What you say just does not 'compute' with me...I will remain Christian.

BigDorrit Remember Heaven is to be with God. I want to be with God. If you don't want to be with God, you can go to be with Satan or Lucifer if you want. Your choice...

Contemplates, the person addressed in Ezekiel 28 is the Prince of Tyre -- it's not Satan (let alone Lucifer). I'm not sure how you get to your conclusion that it is Satan.

But your identification of the serpent with Satan really comes from Paul, and from the writer of Revelation, who had clearly read Paul's letters. That's fine -- but it is only one interpretation. If we look at Genesis in its own terms, and in its context within the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, it is clear that the serpent is simply a serpent.

But anyone or anything can be deceived by Satan Contemplates and niminy...and Adam and Eve did go against God, so it makes sense that the adversary (Satan) tempted them. Whether the snake was used by Satan (in it's ignorance) or was Satan I don't really 'get' what the difference the distinction makes...

But that is me...I'm happy.

Or shine in His light BigDorrit ...

Capsium -- it's a theological difference. I don't see Satan as 'the adversary', I don't have that theology of spiritual warfare, I don't see all evil as emanating from Satan. Anyway, must go and do some work!

niminy Oh. I don't quite understand what you are saying though. But there you go..I don't understand lots of things.