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?

head

Generally people have to take responsibility for other's mistakes though. If someone makes a mistake, people around them have an ability to respond to minimise the damage it could cause, they take on responsibility. This often involves some degree of sacrifice, they have to go 'out of their way' to help. So although this might not involve physical torture and death, although it could depending on the situation, the principal is the same.

Are our ethics so much more advanced than centuries ago? People still are vengeful, many want to see people who do bad things suffer. People still inflict physical violence, there is still much warfare, the death penalty still exists. Even within societies where there is no corporal punishment criminals suffer lack of freedom and a much reduced standard of living. So the sentiment behind much brutality is definitely still present in society today.

Brutality is not only present in religious societies either, for example there are many instances of brutality in communist regimes which are opposed to organised religions.

Brutality is present within humanity. It is present now and in the past.

Are our ethics so much more advanced than centuries ago? People still are vengeful, many want to see people who do bad things suffer.

The fossil record proves we are much less barbaric. Look up Stephen Pinkers research in this area.

his often involves some degree of sacrifice, they have to go 'out of their way'

I get that. But there's no correlation between that scenario and God killing himself. God killing himself doesn't help anyone now. It doesn't help anyone dealing with the aftermath of an assault. And the person who carried out the assault is still guilty of it. No one else.should be able to take the guilt of it. That's immoral in my book.

Brutality is not only present in religious societies

So you concur the OT is brutal in a way most of society was then. I would expect the religion of an infinitely wise God to look very different to every other system. It isn't. It's the same ol' same ol'.

enabling them to live in God's presence with their loved ones

What if their loved ones where Buddhist? What if none of your loved ones make it because they had other ideas, like you did about their religion? How could you be happy with that. An eternity without them because they had a different opinion even though they were lovely people. That's immoral and I wouldn't want to worship a God that arbitrary.

head, God sacrificing Himself fulfilled the need within humanity for blood sacrifice. Blood sacrifice is not part of Christian worship.

Equally what help does vengeance (albeit in the the form of punishment) provide to a person after suffering assault? They have still suffered assault, the person who committed an assault is still guilty of it, vengeance just perpetuates the violence. The only good punishment serves us as a deterrent, however if the threat of punishment has not worked, the damage is already done.

Christianity recognises the guilt of people, it requires them to recognise it in themselves. All that Christianity preaches is to forgive them, that is not punish people for the guilt they themselves have recognised. It is in doing this there is hope for redemption as punishment does not necessarily aid a person to reform because it can instead merely encourage them to seek ways of not being caught, hiding their crime instead. Which means taking responsibility is in actually discouraged where forgiveness is not offered.

When you say we are less brutal head, which 'we' are you referring to? There is still much brutality present in the world.

The OT was brutal, Pagan societies were brutal. God did not require human sacrifice though and many Pagan societies did carry out human sacrifice.

When you say we are less brutal head, which 'we' are you referring to? There is still much brutality present in the world.

The fossil record shows there is less human on human fatalities. We're getting better at dealing with conflict. That's fact.

God did not require human sacrifice

Made a big thing of Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac for a God who is appalled by such practices.

God sacrificing Himself fulfilled the need within humanity for blood sacrifice.

So God got the idea of killing himself because humans got off on brutality. He didn't think he had a better idea of his own what with him being God and all?

Christianity recognises the guilt of people, it requires them to recognise it in themselves

That's a human trait an nothing particular about Christianity. I'm very good at knowing when Ive screwed up without the need to evoke the help of a deity. And it's the person I let down who can forgive me. Not God. If God forgives me but the person who I hurt hasn't then I haven't been forgiven because it's not for god to do that. It's a ridiculous notion that doesn't stand up to moral scrutiny. The idea that I can kill and maim people and be forgiven by a third party and then be granted eternal bliss while someone who didn't feel there was a third party who could forgive them and yet they don't get to go to the afterlife party. That's immoral.

head So if it is up to a victim to forgive, in terms of not seeking vengeance, what chance is there for a guilty person to be redeemed or reformed? How does threat of severe punishment help the guilty to admit and take responsibility for their crime, instead of hiding their guilt? If vengeance is carried out, how is the victim to the crime morally superior to the perpetrator of the crime carried out against them? The violence is just perpetuated.

By God being able to provide forgiveness it means a guilty person canhave a chance to be reformed so they do not wan to commit further crime.

And, yes, Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac. His dedication to God, in this way, was equal to the Pagans around him dedication to their gods. This element of the narrative in this particular OT account was essential to prove this point, to Abraham and others. However God did not require this because He loved Abraham back.

I'm not promoting severe punishment so not sure where that comes from?

Once you've received Christ and accepted his atonement for your sins there is a physical/ spiritual pain should you deviate from what's right. You are reminded constantly.

So it's not really a case of doing what you please and getting atonement anyway. It's more a case of having a constant inner reminder of your transgressions and trying to do better alongside atonement.

head, forgiveness just means not seeking, wanting or requiring vengeance. Your posts, as I understood them, alluded to serious crime and punishment is usually understood to be equal in severity to the crime so that is where the 'severe' was coming from in my post.

Once you've received Christ and accepted his atonement for your sins there is a physical/ spiritual pain should you deviate from what's right.

There's no evidence that this is the case. Christians don't have anything beyond their conscience same as non believers.

By God being able to provide forgiveness it means a guilty person canhave a chance to be reformed so they do not wan to commit further crime.

Rehabilitation doesn't require a God. It just requires education.

And if the person they hurt doesn't forgive them then try have to live with that. And forgive themselves for how it happened and learn from it.

head, rehabilitation just requires education, really? If only it were that simple...

And, yes, Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac. His dedication to God, in this way, was equal to the Pagans

Hmm. Why would he ask Abraham to do something he found disgusting. It makes no sense. Was it just to stroke his ego then? Bit sick in my opinion. And surely he already knew Abraham loved him. If my DH said he would kill our dc if I asked him I wouldn't be impressed. I think he was ill and needed removing from the house.

head, rehabilitation just requires education, really? If only it were that simple..

Elaborate?

head, rehabilitation just requires education, really? If only it were that simple.

I'll take education over religion. Although interestingly there's more Christians in prison than non-believers. Which brings us back to this difficulty Christians have making wrong choices.

head, if victims do not forgive and thus they require vengeance (and there was no God to provide forgiveness) then the perpetrator may not have the chance to forgive themselves before becoming a victim to vengeance. Following on from this they then might actually hold an even worse opinion of their victim for causing them suffering. They might not have understood or understand their own actions required forgiveness and feel their own actions were even justified, if the victim does not forgive and instead fights fire with fire.

God providing forgiveness gives people an incentive to question their actions. It means we can progress, even if we have made mistakes, even if other's write us off in terms of doing anything good.

Although interestingly there's more Christians in prison than non-believers.

I wonder how many are new converts? Or those rediscovering lapsed/ childhood faith. That would make complete sense to me as people who know they have done wrong are in much need of forgiveness, and hope of redemption.

If they're lapsed wouldn't they be less able to deviate from the right thing. In which case most inmates should be atheists?