Please explain something about Christianity

[GoodyGoodyGumdrops]

Before I start, I just want to be quite clear that I'm not trying to be contentious or antagonistic. I'm a person of a different faith, who accepts the plurality of faiths, and wants to live in peace and understanding with others.

My question is about Jesus's death atoning for your sins. Does he not atone for all sins past and future, so that others can believe in him and also receive this atonement? In which case, why do you need to behave ethically?

So we can exercise faith around the stuff we don't know?

Out, whilst I think there are much better and kinder ways of disciplining than corporal punishment, I understand the sentiment behind the scripture. Punishment does serve a purpose if it prevents much worse harm to an individual or society as a whole. It can be necessary if there is absolutely no other way of persuading someone to cease a wholly dangerous and damaging action. In more openly violent and brutal societies, punishments are often more violent and brutal in order to try and enforce some semblance of order.

1DAD

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So yes, I believe we can choose to exercise faith around the stuff we don't know, stuff we have not seen or had proven to us.

I don't know, I think a lot of the time Gods punishments were a little OTT don't you think? I mean Stalin, Hitler, The Kim dynasty, Moa Zedong, King Leopold II and Pol Pot combined have nothing on the God of the bible.

Rockpebblestone 'So yes, I believe we can choose to exercise faith around the stuff we don't know, stuff we have not seen or had proven to us', its a bit God of the gaps then. Using god to explain the things we can explain and reconciling the rest the best we can with religion.

Rock I don't think there are any circumstances in which it's a good idea to condone/tolerate the hitting of children. To do so only helps to ensure that a violent and brutal society remains a violent and brutal society.

I'd feel happier if you acknowledged the Bible got it wrong in that instance!

1DAD I don't possess the capacity to quantify in terms of which is the most horrific. I don't attempt to judge God's actions. I don't know anywhere near enough.

Out, I don't condone hitting children. In my own experience there has never, ever, been a need to. I am non violent. I don't attempt to judge people in more desperate circumstances though.

1DAD is utilising faith tantamount to believing in in a 'god of the gaps'? I don't use the phrase particularly myself. I think there is much more scope in terms of how faith can be utilised. Personally, I view God as being God of everything, not just the gaps.

But God isn't saying I'd rather you didn't hit your children but since you are desperate I'll forgive you if you do. He is advising that hitting is what you ought to do.

Hitting kids is pretty bad, but what do you expect of books written by humans of their time?

For me my biggest concern if God was real is the way he punishes humanity or certain ethnic groups. I suppose the great flood is the radical example but there are many others. He would not have a leg to stand on if he came in front of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Very OTT in my book.

Out, is He? That is not how I understand it.

If an action is not necessary, I do not carry it out. This does not mean I am withholding anything.

Like there is a legal system of crime and punishment in this country (including death without trial if a criminal is deemed dangerous enough). These legal sanctions are not withheld from anyone, yet we would hope they are not carried out when inappropriate or unnecessary.

And just because hitting with a rod is used as an example of discipline it does not mean it is the only form.

Again, I repeat, I do not think there are any circumstances in which hitting children is appropriate. God apparently thinks there are at least some circumstances in which it is acceptable.

I don't think we are going to agree on this Rock. I'm not convinced that God's advice is wise in this instance and I shall be sticking with consulting Dr Spock when it comes to disciplinary issues!

Out let me make it clear, I have never experienced a situation where it is appropriate to hit a child. I don't condone this.

I think it is safe to say I more readily forgive than anything else. My DC is usually very (often overly) regretful when they realise they have done something wrong. Even the threat of a very minor sanction, can be too much and cause anxiety. So I know full well there are better ways of encouraging good behaviour.

Rather like Jesus' atonement allowing for a more complete redemptions do Salvation as opposed to the OT law.

And not do. Typo.

Scaryclown, the thing about arguing with god is that atheists aren't. We are arguing (in the debating sense) with people who say they have one.

From our point of view it looks a bit like this.

Some guy comes up to me and says "hi, this is a list of my god's commands"

Me: "Where is he?"
Guy: "Oh you can't see him, but he told me to give you this list. It's things to do and not do. People you must love and others that you must hate"
Me: "How do I know he even exists?"
Guy: "Oh it says so in this book I have here"
Me: "How do I know the book is true"
Guy: "It says it is true on page 4"
Me: "What if I don't believe you"
Guy: "Well he may torture you for eternity or not. Some of us believe one thing and some another"
Me: "Have you got any proof at all that he is real?"
Guy: "Well if he wasn't real why would millions of people believe in him"
Me: "but millions of people believe in other gods too"
Guy: "But that's different - you just know this is the right one"

I could go on, but you get what I mean.
No matter how sincere the belief there is another person out there with opposing beliefs who is just as sincere and sure. That just proves that believing proves nothing.

Whistle maybe the best thing a person can do is take the book, read it for themselves, research the claims with an open mind, look into it properly. Find out for yourself rather than go along with the crowd and accepting urban legend as the truth.

Especially if you don't have a better (researched) alternative to offer.

Whistle maybe the best thing a person can do is take the book, read it for themselves, research the claims with an open mind, look into it properly. Find out for yourself rather than go along with the crowd and accepting urban legend as the truth.

I guess we are all guilty of thinking this; that others, who have arrived at a different place to us just haven't read it with an open mind.

For me, science and logical reasoning currently offer the best way of getting closest to the real deal. It's not perfect but history shows me it's my best bet.

ChristmasPeace maybe? I am pretty read up on the bible. My background is religious. I am surrounded by many family and friends who are believers of different denominations. The bible is something I have taken great interest in (especially when searching for this god). The more I read it the more it made me doubt. I reveals a quite horrible god. Jesus is fairly cool but it probably best to focus on the organ grinder, not the monkey. That's to put it simply but it is granted more complex than that filled with mixed messages. It is totally flawed and not divine in the slightest. It is so mixed up you can mould the scripture to pretty much justify any thing. Oh and the double standards. There are parts of the bible that are cool. On the whole I cant understand how anyone who has read the bible:

a. believes in its god
b. likes the god in it

But come on ChristmasPeace 'maybe the best thing a person can do is take the book, read it for themselves, research the claims with an open mind, look into it properly. Find out for yourself rather than go along with the crowd and accepting urban legend as the truth'? There are so many other religions in the world claiming to have the true god/gods. Honestly have you done the holy text of all these religion the same curtesy? Looked at them with an open mind and explored their scripture in depth? Maybe their claim is just as valid? Maybe their god is the true one?

Whistledown if you are arguing with a person who believes in God, you ARE arguing with god, since god will be trying to deliver his/her argumrnts through that person. You want to position the argument as arguing with a person just so that you can use person-to-person argumrnts eg emotional guilt strategems and aiming to expose inconsistency to destabilise the person making the arguments. The problem is that belief and God are ephemeral emotional beliefs or senses that are difficult for logical brains to wrestle with without them trying to fix the ground on which to fight.

Because God is love- and omnipresent fixing ground for a fight really isnt on the same plane of understanding. Saying 'ooh Christians arent logical' is like saying 'ooh i proved chemistry isnt a science because he couldnt nsme whats in my pocketses'.

The problem is that belief and God are ephemeral emotional beliefs or senses that are difficult for logical brains to wrestle with

But people who believe in God are largely as logical as those who reject the existence of a loving, interested deity. Christians go to the doctors, look both ways when crossing the road and so on. You have to draw their attention to that disparity: 'you believe there is a God looking out for you but there's no discernible difference in your life and my life.'

Why do you 'have' to?

The problem is that belief and God are ephemeral emotional beliefs or senses that are difficult for logical brains to wrestle with ?

Thankfully not. I agree with headinhands; many I know are intelligent logical people. I think that statement is a bit insulting.

For me that's what makes the hold of region more interesting; how intelligent scientifically minded people can be hoodwinked in that way? How they can practise scientific objectivity in normal life and work but often throw out these values out the window when it comes religion? It goes to show how any mind can be manipulated and maybe tell us something about humanities deeper emotional needs?

It goes to show how any mind can be manipulated and maybe tell us something about humanities deeper emotional needs?

What or who is 'manipulating' us, 1DAD? I can say, quite honestly, that my relatives would offer very little comment if I were atheist. Neither would my friends. I have friends and family who have quite happily described themselves as atheist. Some are shocked and seemingly a bit embarrassed I am not.

The fact there is something, some deeper part of myself that leads me to have faith and believe in God. I feel it would be a manipulation for you, through attempting to bombard me with your logical arguments, to somehow persuade me to deny that part of myself.

And this is exactly how it feels like in my experience, when atheists go on and on about how atheism is the only 'logical' choice. I might be left being quiet for a while, to stop the 'atheist giving me a telling off' but it doesn't change the part of me that believes and has faith in God.

So people either love me or not but my faith remains.

Rockpebblestone I don’t think the church/s are overtly, consciously and in a sinister way manipulating on the whole. I have grown up round the church and the wider denominational Christian environment. There is a lot of good in the church and its people. But yes I do thing there is the power to influence minds in collective worship and participation. I suppose especially when someone is searching/wants to believe in something more. I will give am example. In my former Father-in-Laws church every Sunday someone would start speaking in tongues. People would sometimes be overcome by the spirit and burst out with strange displays or lose the ability to stand. But I have never seen this in any of the other churches I have been to (and I have been to a lot of churches in my time). So why was the holy spirit targeting this small church with the gift of tongues etc every Sunday? Well I am sorry I don’t thing this speaking in tongues is some kind of divine communication. It was a very small church and unlike a lot of churches was involved deeply in every bodies life outside of church. There was energy in that church that I have never seen in any other. I could see how it would be easy to get wrapped up in the energy of it and collective pressure to demonstrate the power of god. I think many were just really wanted to see gods power demonstrated. But know I don’t believe all the talking in tongues was anything but a delusion of the mind? So for me it demonstrates how the minds of normal intelligent people can be deluded, especially when you want to find something. I don’t see what makes the delusions of the god of the bible any more valid or rational than some of the other global religions/gods?

ThomasRichard as for your idea on hell or its existence or nature I must say I don’t agree based on the Bible.
‘Everyone else will go to other places where it's still nice but they're not in God's presence and their progression is limited. This isn't a punishment as such because God loves us and wants us to be happy, so he'll put us where we best fit’.
Where do you get this theory? Scripture or is it your own theory on how you would ideally like God to be? Because let’s face it Revelations, Mathew and Mark are pretty clear about the eternal torture, pain and misery that’s faced. Does god think we’ll be still happy to be ‘thrown into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’?

I am sorry if I come across harsh. Of course I think it is fine to believe what you want to believe if it does little harm (on the who modern UK Christianity is fairly harmless on the whole). But in terms of theological debate I obviously disagree with the existence and the nature of the God of the Bible (if he did exist) from those of faith. I mean not to cause offence just to challenge ideas.