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.

I'll ask again. What specific sins were the Amalekites guilty of that warranted stabbing babies?

Adding extra by simply saying that I thought you were glad about Bin laden's death because you considered it justified?

That isn't twisting your words. You DID say you were glad.

I accept you didn't actually say your gladness was because of seeing the act as justice, but you had given no alternative, instead you just got all touchy about it!

Headinhands read my bullet points

Contemplates, I said "You sure it was every adult?" (who was guilty) and you said "Show me a passage that says it wasn't". The reason I said it is that most Christians get angry even if lumped in with others from their same denomination, let alone all those of the same race.

Do you find as easy to say that all Indians are just as bad as each other, all Irish people and all blacks, unless there is proof to the contrary?

It's interesting you should mention ripping apart babies before they are even brought into this world because I was just musing on where you would stand on that. After all, you were ok with god killing pregnant women a moment ago.

Christians generally claim that foetuses are people. If so then by your own argument they all go to heaven and it all ends happily ever after.

If you are saying they don't go to heaven then your previous defence of mass murder becomes even worse.

I spelt it all out in my rather large post to you today and rather than me repeating it, do you mind reading it again? It's all in there.

headinhands I missed your answer earlier.

So you say you call the actions of rapists, child molesters and killers etc 'crimes'?

m.dictionary.com/definition/crime
CRIME [krahym]

1. any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.

The English dictionary calls a crime a sin. Same thing

contemplates, I have read all your posts and noted what questions you evaded. You should probably have evaded more of them, but I'm glad you didn't. I often have people say to me "but Christians don't really think like that" so it's good to have examples I can point to.

I'm unaware of any unanswered questions!

Unanswered by me, that is

And before you think I'm doing a runner, as of tomorrow I'm away from reception for a while, but will catch up again ASAP just like you do.

That's fine. We all have other lives. Hence my name.

con I don't see how a dictionary definition adds any weight to a belief. For example, using the same online website as you have gives this result for Allah: 1. the Supreme Being; God.

it doesn't seem to involve a lack of mercy or love

Wouldn't it have made more sense to have stopped the formation of that nation in its tracks earlier on. If you track it back far enough it need only one woman being infertile.

Or maybe god could have just killed them in their sleep instead of the Israelites having to go through the well documented psychological trauma of violent combat. Imagine what killing babies and children must do to an individual. Imagine them going home to their family. Elsewhere in the OT god is seen doing stuff without the need for human help "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn — animals —and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD"

He didn't need help then.

Who are we to question God?

If you dont believe in Him, what is the point?
If you do believe in Him, who are we to question God?

You cannot tar all Christians with the same brush though, BigDorrit, that would be prejudice.

We don't all try to force governments to kow tow to 'bigotries' either. We don't all interfere. Added to this, the people who use their positions to influence people in power, come under all sorts of umbrellas. Secret societies, old boy networks, Quangos, you name it. Not all of these people would even call themselves Christian, some are most probably very far from it.

Yet Christians can be elected or selected into positions of authority, like anyone else. You wouldn't have us discriminated against, just for our beliefs, would you BigDorrit?

Our beliefs may affect our decisions, just as anyone's can. Would you actually be so strict as to demand proportional representation, for every organisation with authority? It could get ver complicated, people's beliefs changed and develop all the time....

^very. Typo.

BigDorrit changing the status quo does arguably affect 'rights'. It is understandable if people complain if they are losing 'rights' / privileges they traditionally had. What is just depends on your opinion.

I mean how would you feel if you were not allowed to leave property to your relatives? But have you a right to property after death? Should you be able to say where it goes?

I can see the system in the UK is not very democratic, though and I'm the first to complain about 'nanny state'.

Who are we to question God?

Who is god to question us?

Did he tame the animals and the lightning for our use, did he map the world and build the cities, the planes, the satellites and space ships, develop societies, create hospitals and opera houses, Has he planted one crop or fed one child.

If he wants to turn up and make some kind of claim we'll consider its authenticity and merits.

:)

cups you weren't born a Christian so you wouldn't even be a Christian if you hadn't at some point gone through a stage of questioning and judging the Christian god. And he knew this would be necessary and was happy for it then, but now that you're a Christian he demands that you stop questioning him? Seems a bit odd, to rely on your ability to make a value judgment on his behaviour then but demand you suspend that now?

cup I'm not interested in god, I'm interested in you and what you think and your reasons for thinking what you do.

BigDorrit

I'm not sure what this has to do with it. The "status quo" as is stands gives one section of the population privileges that it doesn't give to the other. Status Quo could be good if all parties share the same rights.

And there is a big difference between rights and privileges, the problem is when people have had privileges for so long that they think they are their rights.

It is debatable as to what is defined as rights and privileges, that is my point. I'm not saying I agree with non elected people being in positions of power within the government, in the way that they are currently, however I'm not sure I disagree either. I say this because the ones which are elected do not seem to be universally better at serving the UK population than the ones which are not. The ones which are elected usually come from fairly privileged backgrounds too. They are all protective of the countries economic interests, so to some degree money still means power. It doesn't seem remarkably different to peerage and clergy.