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.

And thankfully God does not judge on intelligence. He sent 'fools' to 'confound the wise'.

Ahem.....I've probably done some confounding in my time...

Greater empathy gained by greater knowledge, not sure about that one. Not if the lecturers, I encountered at university, were anything to go by...or some of the consultants I have encountered in hospital...

cheers anyway!

An argument for ignorance- I have heard it all now.

atthestroke I told you I have felt I could argue my way in and out of anything.

Can you see why I need Christ now?

I call child molesters, child molesters rapists, rapists etc. You see the pattern?

You think that's incredulous atthe, we once had a Christian on here maintain that the bible is riddled with errors/contradictions because it's essentially the real mccoy. If it was false it would be more polished and coherent. You couldn't make it up

Capsium, are you offended when Muslims tell you you've done something to upset Allah.? No, and that's how I feel when you say 'don't be offended' so no worries.

Contemplates. If you think babies go straight to heaven but there comes a point when a child won't why aren't you killing every baby you can? Think about it logically. You've got a room of say, 20 babies. If you kill all of them they will all go to heaven. If you let them live maybe only 3 or 4 will find the path that is narrow. So you would potentially be saving 16 should from hell.

How old does a child have to be before god would send him/her to the basement as it were?

How old would a child have to be before you would send a child to hell?

Thanks crescentmoon, very interesting.

I thought babies were born with original sin? That's why there is a rush to have terminally ill babies baptised before they die.

caught up in other peoples poor choices

What poor choices had the amelakites made?

headinhands Sun 06-Apr-14 15:33:02
I call child molesters, child molesters rapists, rapists etc. You see the pattern?
And what do you call their collective actions. Accidents? Faulty genes? Wrongdoing? Illegal activity?

headinhands Sun 06-Apr-14 15:48:17
Contemplates. If you think babies go straight to heaven but there comes a point when a child won't why aren't you killing every baby you can? Think about it logically. You've got a room of say, 20 babies. If you kill all of them they will all go to heaven. If you let them live maybe only 3 or 4 will find the path that is narrow. So you would potentially be saving 16 should from hell.
It is not for us to take a life. It is for God to decide who dies and when. He alone is the author and finisher. The giver and taker of life.

headinhands Sun 06-Apr-14 15:50:50
How old would a child have to be before you would send a child to hell?
Well as it happens I don't send anyone to hell! But God knows who are His, it is between Him and each individual. In the same way that children are potty trained when they reach a certain level of maturity, and not before, spiritual awareness is individual and between each individual (of whatever age) and God.

atthestrokeoftwelve Sun 06-Apr-14 15:53:45
I thought babies were born with original sin?
Yes of course we are born imperfect as we are born human. However, a baby has no ability to make a choice to trust or not, and God's grace is about what (or who) you are trusting in for your salvation.

That's why there is a rush to have terminally ill babies baptised before they die.
I cannot even imagine the sorrow of losing a child. The sad reality though, it that baptism doesn't save you. It is "works". John 3 v 16 says whosoever "believes" (trusts in; relies upon) HIM, shall not perish but have eternal life." It doesn't say whosoever gets baptised. Or whosoever goes to church. Or whosoever gives the largest amount to charity. ALL of these things are "works" and the bible is quite clear we are saved through Grace, and not of our own works.

Barely had time to even catch up and have to go again, but a couple of things stand out.

But is Contemplates or anybody else "cheering on" wanton slaughter, or saying it is ok to murder infants? No, of course not.

Actually Contemplates said it was not just ok but a positive thing to kill children because otherwise they'd be orphans.

Would you have orphaned children unable to fend for themselves, dying of sickness and starvation? We even offer to euthanise people to escape suffering these days, why is it such an alien concept just because it was decided by God and not the person suffering? The innocent, like babies, go straight to heaven when they die. We all have to die some day and death is not very pleasant at the best of times.

I'd like to see you try that as a defence in a British court. We may not be gods, but we know savage brutality when we see it. Actually what would be more informative would be if we could bring back each of the parents to explain that to them face to face.

Also I'd like to point out that any comparison between god's actions and those of modern day criminals is pretty weak. After all we admit that we do bad things, but Christians are claiming that god is perfect. If you said "Oh he was no better than anyone else from those primitive times" or "yes there are always sick people who commit atrocities and god is no worse than any other psychopath" you would have a better argument.

Characteristically, God deals not just with individuals, but with nations as a whole when grand designs are in play. Since Canaanite sin was regular and systematic—the entire adult population participated in the idolatrous system—God judged the entire nation.

You sure it was every adult?

You know since Hitler was introduced into this I have to say that I never thought it was terribly significant that he was a Catholic. I've never used it as an argument that all Catholics are evil. However now I've seen this argument about how god deals with nations, not individuals, I'm thinking that if I believed that I'd have to think that he was a good Catholic and following god's example. He even considerately killed the babies so they would not be orphaned. He was practically a saint.

I'm pretty sure this thread will have made as many Christians uncomfortable as atheists. This will not be what you all believe. Still it's worth noting that Christians who as we devout and sincere as you are do think this way and believe these things. It should at least cast doubt on the way belief systems develop.

contemplates their actions are crimes.

headinhands
You asked what the Amalekites did wrong.
I will bullet point some information as much of it is repeating what I’ve already said.

• We all deserve the same fate because of our sin
• It seems that the main issue here is not whether God commanded genocide, or fair judgement, but whether the same God who loved a world of sinners and show mercy towards us could also command death of some of those sinners
• The Amalekites were not foreigners to God, they were descendants of Esau, brother of Jacob.
• They were not Canaanites and the people of Israel were not about to take their land. Numbers 20 v 17 says: “Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well. We will go along the King’s Highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.”
• The Amalekites hated Israel right from the start and attacked them when they were at their most vulnerable, without provocation.
• The Amalekites attacked those who were most weary – stragglers at the end of the group. And who do you think this would have been? The sick, elderly, women, and children.
• Israel have a lot of wars between the time of Moses and the time of Saul, but they never once attack the Amalekites.The Amalekites attack Israel though. In Numbers 14:45, they attack Israel again while they are still in the desert. In Judges 3:13 they join in with the Moabites in attacking Israel. In Judges 6:3, they invade Israel “whenever the Israelites planted their crops”, and together with the Midianites “devour the produce of the land… and leave no sustenance in Israel and no sheep or ox or donkey” (6:4).
• The Amalekites were the nation who more than any other tried to destroy Israel, trying from the very birth of Israel, 200-400 years before the command in 1 Samuel 15, and they would continue for another 600 years.

So lots of reasons for God to fight against the Amalekites. But we still haven’t really dealt with the issue—why does God command such a strong judgement here?
One seems to be that the Amalekites were notorious for killing children when they attacked (1 Sam 15:33), so it is repayment in kind.
Another reason is the one given in Exodus 17.
“The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” (Exod 17:16b)
God knew that the Amalekites would always oppose Israel—that the children of the Amalekites would do it when they grew up, and their descendants too—as we see with Haman in the book of Esther.

But God let them have a way out if they chose. If an Amalekite decided that they didn’t want to fight against Israel they could easily have decided to be a Kenite—dressing themselves up as a Kenite and just slipping off. Remember the Amalekites’ national identity was set up against Israel and against God’s plan to bless the world. But they all had the opportunity for a way out if they would but stop their wicked ways. They just had to renounce their identity as being the main target against Israel and stop doing it! Maybe some of them did. But many of them didn’t.
So It’s not exactly genocide, is it?

So the command in 1 Samuel 15:3 looks a lot less like genocide, and a lot more like “If anyone—man, woman, child, whoever—doesn’t take the chance to give up their identity as Amalekites and therefore also their opposition to Israel, then kill them. And make sure that you don’t profit from doing it.”

It is then questionable whether it is indeed a genocide in the modern sense. It doesn’t involve dehumanisation of the ethnic group; it doesn’t seem to involve lack of mercy or love. But it is destroying the identity of a nation that has set itself against God and his plan to bless the world, and all who cling to that identity. And as such, it is indeed a picture of the eventual fate that awaits all those who set themselves irrevocably against God and refuse to repent.

BigDorrit Sun 06-Apr-14 17:13:20
And you claimed my thoughts were inconsistent! (Even wen you didn't know what they were and were trying to make them up for me
Hardly! As far as I recall it you stopped the discussion, refusing to answer a simple question, saying if it was RL you'd walk.

BackOnlyBriefly

Actually Contemplates said it was not just ok but a positive thing to kill children because otherwise they'd be orphans.

Positive? There is nothing positive about war or death, or orphans. I've made it quite clear the evil and suffering in this world is. not. nice. The bible doesn't pretend it is either.

I'd like to see you try that as a defence in a British court. We may not be gods, but we know savage brutality when we see it. It could be argued that the modern day courts now rule in favour of poisoning and ripping apart babies before they are even brought into this world, in the name of "choice". I don't think they're in a better position than God to judge about defenceless babies really.

8Since Canaanite sin was regular and systematic—the entire adult population participated in the idolatrous system—God judged the entire nation. You sure it was every adult?*
Show me a passage that says it wasn't.

if I believed that I'd have to think that he was a good Catholic and following god's example. He even considerately killed the babies so they would not be orphaned. He was practically a saint.
As I explained earlier, and I'm sure you read it but I will explain it again, it is not for us to either be God's judge for Him, or to take lives unjustly. He is the giver of life and death, not you and I.