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?

People are different, they have differing psychological responses and following on from this physical responses, to the same event. So it does not surprise me that worship, within churches, differs.

I think, personally, that anyone trying to diagnose serious psychiatric conditions, such as having delusions, without possessing the appropriate qualifications or taking into account an individual's medical history, is on very shaky ground indeed. If the mere presence of religious faith denoted mental illness, then there would be so many ill people about, that it would be difficult to label any condition as a disorder, rather than being entirely normal!

I think also, it is important to acknowledge on these particular boards, people may just be looking for clarification or possible answers to questions, they have on specific aspects of faith. Turning everything into debate can shut these type of conversations down. Because of the nature of faith includes beliefs without conclusive proof, much will be difficult to even be verbalised but can be very much felt. Aggressive debate and belittling believer's intelligence just hinders expression, shutting down conversation.

Why do you 'have' to?

Because we're debating. I wouldn't go into a church uninvited, or your lounge and start trying to reason like I do here. On an Internet message board, on a thread inviting discussion then yes. I assume the Christians who post on threads such as these are open to difficult questions as am I. I love people asking me difficult questions. If I realise I have no idea or don't want to tackle it then I know I need to go away and do some thinking.

Come on give people some credit. I think its a bit patronising to say that people cant handle debate and the open expression of opinions. Would you have this be some kind of echo chamber? We are all adults here.

Yes to some extent we keep diverging off the main focus of the question. But to answer the question I think the nature of god is important. As is the actual existence of god, Jesus and heaven. But even keeping it in theological realm it is a very interesting question. Of which I suppose we can only use the bible as a reference? Unless anyone has got a direct line to god on the matter? It has raised different interpretations of the bibles meaning. Some with more weight of scripture over others. Of course the main reference on the matter does indicate that you need to except Jesus/god and the punishment for not is very horrible. That is harsh considering that even exposure to the bible depends where in the world your born.

I have not said people have diagnose serious psychiatric conditions per se. It is well known that perfectly psychologically healthy people can still become wrapped up in a shared reality and group experience. People can find what they want to believe if they truly want to. I would say that the vast majority are perfectly mentally sound. Its part of having a perfectly normal bairn and emotional need that lends its self to religion. In fact since we are mentioning psychological profession there has been no end of psychological studies to understand the psychology behind understanding why people follow religions. When I have seen these expressions of extreme religious experience (such as talking in tongues) it has been put down to the holy spirits presence in the room. Now please tell me in terms of the psychological community would the general consensus on what is causing this extreme expression be because of the Holy spirit or some kind of psychological conditioning or delusion? It cant be both can it? Its either the holy spirit making people lose control of them self or people wrongfully believing their body has been taken over by the spirit?

Personally (and I believe a lot more credibly) I think this is not the Holy spirit. So for me its not nice to say these perfectly good normal people are deluded in terms of the existence of god and their experience. I don't like it but how else can I put it. A delusion is the belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument. Especially in the modern age a lot of Christianity does not hold well against scrutiny. And for me I am really not convince that people talking in tongues and falling about is down to a take over of the holy spirit. Therefore it must be some kind of delusion or trick of the conscious. Of course those people believe the experience and its very real for them. I have no doubt about that. I suppose the trump card is the idea of faith. How do you argue with it? There is absolutely no evidence that this is these actions are acts of the holy sprit. In fact the weight of evidence is against the idea. But despite this because of faith its real, honest? I believe this is something that will always be problematic when atheists and people of religion debate. No matter the evidence religious people will always believe. Especially if they have a personal relationship god. How can anyone tell you god isn't real when they know and feel him? I know plenty of people like this. That is faith.

Aggressive debate and belittling believer's intelligence just hinders expression, shutting down*

To not debate on a thread that is clearly a debate between people with different opinions would be belittling and patronising to all.

Put it this way. Imagine someone has been brought up in a Christian family but realises they don't believe. How about those lurkers? Are you suggestion it should all be geared towards promoting or protecting Christianity?

Why do you feel your expression is hindered? No one can stop you saying what you want so long as you're not breaking the MN rules. If you feel belittled: why do you feel belittled? What makes you feel that way? Is it valid?

See if I felt belittled or shut down I would examine those feelings within myself. I would want to understand why and if it was valid. If I find my feelings are valid I would come back to the thread with my clear reasoning. If I am unable to justify my feelings I would want to work out why. Which happens a lot for me.

Sigh. Not every conversation containing a question, regarding a specific aspect of the Christian Faith, requires a debate demanding believer's justify their faith.

When this happens it means specific questions do not really get discussed in great detail before threads are derailed. And then people of faith often stop posting.

There are whole other threads more geared towards debating. The same questions, from atheists, have been repeated, again and again, whether they relate to the OP's initial post or not, on just about every thread wanting to explore specific aspects of religious faith.

So who is it here wanting the 'Echo chamber' again?

So when someone asks a question should answers not be scrutinised? A question was asked. The questioner is looking for answers. We find truth by putting theories to the test and scrutinising them. How else can we aim to we be happy that we have done our best to find the most accurate answer to our question?

For me the answer to the question is from two perspectives:

One of you need not be ethical to please a god that doesn't exist, from an atheist point of view.

Two that if you do believe in the bible then that is more complex. But general weight of scripture suggests that Jesus dying alone does not save you. You must accept Jesus or face an unimaginable eternity of terrible suffering. By the standard set that would be most of humanity (its a bit harsh). Of course that does on (maybe a simplistic level) make you wonder what was the point of Jesus' death? And of course this is the crux of the OPs question.

Now some would debate differently. Anything based on sound scripture I would say is noteworthy and valuable to the understanding of atonement in terms of Christianity. And of course even this changes depending on denomination. What I find very surprising and ironic is that so much of the Christian perspective that has been given on here lacks foundation in scripture. Maybe there is an assumption that all atheists are not read up on the bible. To me that would be daft as the bible has significant importance to are understanding of where we are today. Often people don't like to think of God in such a nasty way and yes there are parts of the bible that support a more merciful and user friendly god but these tend to be week associations compared to the volume of scripture on the mater and its quite explicit talking on this matter.

So I guess I do agree with Rockpebblestone that we are going round in circles a little. I do think that the other side of this argument is to blame too as there is a real silence on the tough questions. Almost side stepping with the skill of a politician. I think the OP is seeking truth. That's what I am looking for. That's why I am happy to debate and test ideas. I could be wrong but there has been little evidence to suggest this. I am just not sure if everyone is confident enough in their believe to test it in a rational forum.

Pebble, there are threads that are non-debate threads. Believers who want to discuss the finer points of doctrine within their brand do so there and I wouldn't post there. I won't apologise for getting stuck in on these threads. Again if people can't justify their beliefs/non-beliefs then shouldn't that lead them to self examination? I cannot imagine it would be better to be in an environment where I knew I wouldn't be challenged.

1DAD I feel that my perspective is supported by scripture though. When you started to emphasise a more brutal and wrathful god, to me, it seemed to ignore the whole issue of how we see God in Christ and the atonement. I would agree, as supported by scripture, we have to accept the atonement to benefit from it (otherwise things as an inevitability go on as before) my musings elaborated in terms of how acceptance might occur. I think it possible that people, from any culture, might be able to accept Christ / what he stands for and the atonement at a deeper instinctive level. This I feel does not contradict the scripture it merely explores the meaning of acceptance. What an instinctive acceptance might look like when faced with a lack of formally taught knowledge.

1Dad when you talk of your negative view of God, what comes to mind? Is it just God judges people? Why is that such a problem
When a) he always gives fair warnings first, and b) we mere mortals are quite happy to judge each other - quite rightly too. So if you commit a crime you do the time, in other words you pay the price.

Prison is full of 'innocents' who feel hard done by. Even though they're guilty as sin! We tend not to argue with human justice but some of us try to tell the God of the universe how he should handle his affairs? It reminds me of God talking to Job when Job questioned him: God asked "do you know where the storehouse of the snow is? Where you there when I created the world? Can you tame the most fierce of animals who submit to me?"

I don't know how well travelled you are, but there are times when people come across the great wonders of the world and marvel and how magnificent it all is, and get a sense of being a tiny ant in comparison. That perspective is how Christians view themselves with God. He is the judge and ruler, he has the ultimate authority, and in the same way we would not be cocky and obnoxious when faced with an earthquake or violent thunderstorm, we should not be that way with the God more powerful that the forces of nature (which we do revere).

When a) he always gives fair warnings first,

So because he warned the people of Noah's time that if they didn't hurry up and worship him, then he'd have to drown them and their kids you think that's fair. That doesn't sound 'terroristy' to you?

They were committing awful atrocities. Many times in the Bible where God brought judgement it was at a time people had turned to idols, and were busy sacrificing their babies to the idols.

In the case of Noah, God has repeatedly warned them for 120 years to turn back to Him, which meant to cease from their idol worship and all the atrocities that went with that. I think 120 years grace is much more time than we would give before stepping in when the community are sacrificing their babies, don't you?

If you think about it logically, God's judgement for these people was death. The Bible is clear that the wages of sin is death. Having given them 120 years to turn back to him and stop that awful sinning, which had become quite extreme by anyone's standards, he eventually brought the judgement they deserved. If you think about it logically, how can you can end this awful practice other than to bring judgement of death? And how can you bring the judgement of death and leave anyone to look after the babies at the same time?

Such an event would be wrong if you are I orchestrated it. But God is the giver of life. He is the ultimate judgement on matters of life and death, we are not.

One can be logical and also feel emotional truths expressed illogically, but some people turn that bit of theor brain off because they think its better to. in the same way some manahers think 'taking the emotion out of the situation gives a better decision. it doesn't always.

You can believe that god and religeon works and love it whislt at the same time knowing its technically rubbish, in the same way you dont freak out at TV because its got people on it but they aren't actually there. Thays why humans are wellinteresting

Rockpebblestone I think the wrathfulness of God and his attitude to humanity is not ignoring the subject, it is in fact very important to the question. Because the bible gives an insight in to the nature of god. The OP wants to know why if Jesus atoned for our sins why we need to be good. And to me the bible says basically we do need too follow gods rule and shows horrible consequences if they you do. If we do not understand god and his rules how can we answer the question?

Rockpebblestone its clear we disagree on the criteria for heaven and the numbers that will pass goods rules. I think the bible is pretty clear on this. But I also understand that it would be hard to follow such a horrible god. Of course you say there is scripture that supports your less restrictive entrance policy so also a valid argument. But does this not prove how erroneous and conflicting the bible is? Also my view of gods message is quite clearly and frankly put across in a few books of the bible. Is the scripture you get your more inclusive view from as numerous and as clearly put as the conflicting scripture? I place the importance on scripture because I believe it is the best source to answer the question. It is our only real set of instructions and guide to god.

ChristmasPeace you god is totally immoral. My objection is not to judgement or justice; its the total lack of justice and poor judgement of god. For example:

a. he has given us fair warning, really? So say I was born in the most remote part of the jungle, never hearing or seeing the outside world. Never hearing good word. Living a life that is not to harmful but totally sinful in terms of the bible. Maybe I had 3 wives, I have made numerous idols of false gods I was brought up with and praised them, never kept the Sabeth because I no not of it and so on. Not that the sin is that important as the magic key is accepting god in the first place. Anyway I was to die tragically you would understand me being a little upset if I was to come up to find this god that I never knew existed and them sent down for an eternality of horrible painful torment in hell? You would be like hey man you could have given me some warning!

b. We judge each other and often have legal frame works. These vary in fairness depending on cultural expectations and parts of the world. Most systems at least try to write some sort of proportionality into their sentencing structure, not god. He is very inflexible on this matter. You either except him as lord no matter how evil you have been on earth and go to heaven. Or you don't except him and face an eternity in pain and misery. Even if you have not been a very good persons that seems a little harsh don't you think? I mean an eternity of never ending pain and misery. That easily a million times worse than the death penalty. And in most places around the world they try to carry of the death penalty in a quick and as pain free as possible manner. Definitely not something that is drawn out in pain over an eternity.

Ok so we see god punishing the truly wicked. Lest see what he does eh? So 'God brought judgement it was at a time people had turned to idols, and were busy sacrificing their babies to the idols'. So he looks down and says that's bang out of order, fair play. So naturally he decides that mass genocide would show them a lesson, it sure did. Killing innocents. Once killing the whole planet and ironically all the innocent babies and animals bar two of every type. Does that sound like fair justice? Of course I suppose the population of the plant that was cleansed by god are still enjoying an eternity in pain.

Let look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? So the whole male population wants to rape the two angles that god set down. Understandably this is horrible and god is fairly upset. So how does god deal with it justly? Of course 'then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land' (Genesis 19). So he slaughters all the bad men, the innocent women, children, toddlers and babies. Then just to add salt to the wounds he saves Job (the good guy) but his wife gets turns into salt because she disobeys god and looks at its destruction. And now the wicked heathen men, women and children of that land are spending eternity in pain and suffering. Was this slaughter just and proportional?

So is god just? No.

I would be a horrible concept to think that such a wicked and unjust person was in reality 'the judge and ruler, he has the ultimate authority'.
Lets hope not eh?

Lot* (not job). Been on the old ebay looking for bargains; joblots on the brain

1DAD, I think, personally, your interpretation of the Bible gives too much emphasis to the OT law and God.

Jesus 'fulfilled' the law.

How I understand this is that, is by accepting Christ and His atonement, a person's heart (in the deep spiritual sense) is changed so progressively we are changed to be more Christlike. The change occurs from the inside out, that is heartfelt convictions prompt the appropriate actions, not the other way on. That is (attempting to) merely following rules making a person good, is not my personal belief. That is a summary. I can find scriptural references to support my belief but I'm sure, with your biblical knowledge and background, you know them(?).

I find, from my perspective, the view of who God is changes, from your own. Here you see God's overwhelming mercy and forgiveness and also appreciate Christ much more fully. It allows for gradual change, from people's differing starting points and circumstances, acknowledges God's Grace and a more personal spiritual experience.

that should say God's wrath in the first sentence. Embarrassing typo!

^ then if you look at sin as being symptomatic of not really being in tune with the heart of God, the way He views thing, what He wants for us, a lot of the OT accounts become a lot more palatable. God trying to, wanting to, warn people of inevitable natural disasters, in terms of planetary systems etc, and most taking no notice, hence tragedy.

I think 120 years grace is much more time than we would give before stepping in when the community are sacrificing their babies, don't you?

We as in the UN possibly, but God has abilities beyond us. He behaves like Isis on crack. He wasn't interested in only targeting people who were causing great harm.

And don't forget that Yahweh drowned a tonne of babies and asked one of his biggest fans to kill their child.

Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac. His dedication to God, in this way, was equal to the Pagan's (who were sacrificing their children) dedication to their gods. This element of the narrative, in this particular OT account, was important in order to really emphasise this. Abraham experiencing the same apparent requirement as the Pagans truly underlines the horror of the situation. When things are never a real prospect there can be a temptation to not really consider the true nature of them. However, thankfully, God did not require Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because He loved Abraham back.

Right so to prove how horrific God found child sacrifice he asked Abraham to do it???

So to prove to my kids how horrific I find animal cruelty I should order them to cook the pet hamster in the microwave and only tell them to stop just before they press the start button.

I can only begin to explain how illogical that explanation is. Remember God commanded Abraham to sacrifice him. It wasn't that Abraham assumed God wanted him to sacrifice Isaac and God intervened saying "What the actual fuck are you doing Abraham!!!!! I hate child sacrifice, it's despicable. I can't believe you thought I would want that. Can't you remember all the tribes I got you to kill for the same reason!?"

Rockpebblestone I think Abraham got off easy. Not all of god’s followers got that easy. Look at poor Jephthah who kept his word and burnt to death in sacrifice his only child in Judges 11:30-39 thus fulfilling his agreement with god. Not only is it horrible that god allowed this, the point that the bible shows it as great example of the devotion we should have for god. God seems to have had no problem with this. Maybe he only hates the human sacrifice of children to other gods? Plus I hardly think the mercy he shows to Abraham lets him off the hook for the numerous acts of genocide? I mean I think he really may have a thing against kids. In Leviticus 26:27-29 ‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters’. I mean come on what a sick mind god has.

Rockpebblestone do you not find it problematic that you can find scripture that says one thing and me scripture that says otherwise? I mean the scripture I base my argument on uses pretty clear language and there is a fair bit of it. Likewise the bible does talk in depth on gods love. Sometimes it suggests a love for all the human race, but sometimes it is very selective. Plus if we look at gods actions in the bible rather than just his words we see this selectivity, double standards and strange justice throughout. I mean on the whole Jesus is a really good guy. On the whole he demonstrated love, compassion and tolerance for even the lowest and most sinful in society. Virtues that many Christians like to highlight and follow well at the same time gloss over the darker side of god. So the problem is the bible its self is a massively contradictory book that changes its tune throughout. So I don’t see how we can say it is a reliable evidence of god’s word unless god himself is so confused and keeps changing the story.

On another point who actually believes the stories in the Bible are true? I mean now as Christianity is really starting crumble under rationality we are starting to see amongst some a huge amount of back peddling on the bible. Even some Christians can’t handle the ideas in the bible and its science defining accounts. More and more some Christians are starting to say that oh some of that extreme stuff is not real, its just stories to make a point. Even in their own minds logic prevents them from really having faith in Gods power or the stories that demonstrate his power and nature. This back peddling really has an air of desperation about. As if it an attempt to cling the bible for dear life as the shores of logic and reason wash its foundations away bit by bit.

Perhaps it was inevitable, given the context, that it would cross Abraham's mind that God might require this. In this narrative these fears, are well and truly faced.

Perhaps it was inevitable, given the context, that it would cross Abraham's mind that God might require this. In this narrative these fears, are well and truly faced.

But that's not how it happened. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice him. Unless you think he people who wrote the bible lied?