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?

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.

Again you don't need God for that. People have turned their lives around without any need for religion. Just through education of human psychology and an understanding of why they did it etc. No need for deities.

Elaborate?

To learn anything new or that which conflicts with our own world view, we must first disregard our old world view.

What makes a person disregard their own world view in favour of something new? In Christianity it is love for Christ.

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

Lapsed means they are not actively believing so not actively accepting atonement, not actively questioning their own actions in terms of what is right by Christ, which would mean deviation would be easy to do thoughtlessly.

Whether inmates are Christians or not is not really relevant in terms what you seem to want to find out head, that is, 'Does redemption through Christ exist? If people weren't Christians when they commuted a crime they could become Christians after. Also Christians still can do wrong, as becoming Christlike is a life long process.

Again you don't need God for that

head But Christians believe God does do that - turn people's lives around. Believers will credit Him with examples in their own lives. They would say they need Him. Who are you to say they don't?

which would mean deviation would be easy to do thoughtlessly.

Which would make sense if Christians agreed. Then you argue that gods spirit is steering them. But Christians don't agree. One Christian thinks gay marriage is a sin and another doesn't. What appears to be happening is that Christians, like society, develop their ideas by the culture they live in, like society. So there's nothing supernatural going on.

who are you to say they don't

I can say what I want. I appreciate people think that a God is guiding them, or forgiving them. And I can say there's no evidence.

I've been told on here that I need God to forgive me. I'm not bothered by that because I can debate trough it rather than trying to shut it down. It's morally reprehensible for a third party to take the guilt of someone. Wether you think it's God or Stan from down the road. My mistakes are between me and the person I let down. And I can learn through understanding myself better, reading about psychology and working how it happened and how I can avoid it. It's that simple.

we must first disregard our old world view.

Again religion doesn't have the monopoly on this. There are many ways people turn their life around. I wonder how people are able to do it, to work out right from wrong for themselves without God?

head, the OP has asked about the Christian perspective on atonement and behaving ethically which I have written about.

I cannot see how your pondering a over whether religion has a "monopoly" on people turning their lives around or whether God's forgiveness is "morally reprehensible" is relevant. These are value judgements, you appear to have made, which do not really contribute to answering the OP's question, as far as I can understand.

Head you don't need God to forgive you, because you are not a believer.

Doesn't a christian believe i should believe? I assume they believe I will have to pay for my unbelief somehow?

My understanding of the Christian position is that when you embrace the faith and believe in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, your behaviour inevitably improves as a consequence – or at the very least your desire to behave well grows stronger and your feelings of remorse when you fall short intensify.

In the Bible - particularly in the writings of St Paul - being a true Christian and behaving well are inextricably linked. There cannot be one without the other.

But I do think that there actually are other belief systems and ideologies that can guide you towards being a good person and I find it disappointing that the Bible contains passages that appear to indicate entry to heaven is restricted to Christians.

Typically people adopt ideas about spiritual matters that are, for the most part, dependent on the community they grow up in and their own innate tendency to veer towards credulity or skepticism. So I have some sympathy with the words of Thomas Jefferson:

My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s that we are to be saved by our good works, which are within our power, and not by our faith, which is not within our power.

I find it interesting that the agreement between the Abrahamic God and Muslims is that you can get into heaven through good works. Jesus is still there in Islam as a pure and inspirational role model and beloved prophet but does not play the part of a sacrificial lamb.

(I admit that I rather prefer the Islamic understanding of Jesus’ significance. Christianity is the religion I’m more familiar with on account of my upbringing but I can’t help feeling that Muslims benefit from a less misanthropic post-death arrangement with God.)

Out, but surely doing good works, without feeling any compulsion to do them, or feel any need to do them, just as a way of 'buying' your way into heaven, would feel entirely alienating? The works without faith would not be an outward reflection of your own faith and belief and done out of love, but, instead, just a 'chore' to ensure a place in heaven. And then how would heaven feel if you could not be at one with God? If you had no faith for His essential nature, disagreed with it?

Rock

People are not normally motivated to do good works solely by the prospect of getting into heaven, so the experience of trying to do some good would not often be as empty as you suggest. There is a feel good factor and sense of purpose and rightness intrinsic to helping out whatever your religious stance.

If I were in charge of post-death arrangements, there’d be a tailored and 'humane' experience for each individual, which would provide enlightenment in whatever way was required.

But given that I’m not in charge and assuming that it's got to be either heaven or hell and some kind of filtering process is required to whittle down the numbers getting into heaven, I think good works trump belonging to the ‘right’ religion as an entrance criterion.

If being a Christian beats doing good stuff, then Tony Blair and George Bush will be at the front of the queue for heaven. Meanwhile the Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi and Malala Yousafzai will be languishing at the back.

Do you think God would really want to listen to endless self-justifying reruns of the Iraq war when he could be meditating peacefully with the Dalai and Co?

Out, I think some people who declare themselves Christians, seemingly without assimilating much of Christ's teachings and living their lives by them, might be in for a bit of a shock in coming face to face with God. Heaven would possibly not seem that heavenly without being able to be at one with God and agree with what He stands for.

If people have love, it is my Christian belief that this comes from God. As God is in Christ and Christ in God, anyone who loves has an aspect of Christ in them too. Depending on what culture they come from, they might not know about Christ or know Him by name. They might even (incorrectly and unfortunately) associate Christ with some past traumatic experience with a particular disfunctional church. However they both might possess enough Christlike qualities which would allow them to come face to face with God in heaven. I don't know for sure but I do believe there is hope for all.

Head Christians' "great commission" is to "make disciples", but it's up to individuals how they choose to do this. There's lots in the Bible about using your talents, so a a good idea is to play to your strengths. I understand the Bible passage "Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened to you" to mean that someone interested in making the leap of faith to become a believer in Christ will start doing some research (maybe attending church, reading the Bible, talking to Christans). Then if they repent and ask forgiveness from God and ask Jesus to come into their life, He will. So it's between them and God, rather than anything I want.

Part of the great commission is to raise the dead. Is that also up to you how you do it. And don't forget the bit about picking up the poisonous snakes.

The great commission is to make disciples, full stop.

Sorry to hijack but I have a question if anyone can help...

God made Adam and Eve...

Adam and Eve have Cain, Abel and Seth...

Cain kills Abel.... Cain gets banished.... Cain then finds a wife...

Where did this wife come from? Can't use the argument of incest with some unmentioned sister as he found his wife after banishment...

unicorn, may I suggest that you really need to start a new thread, if you want your question answered?

Not only will this alert people, who have got an opinion on the subject matter of your question, to give their responses but also it prevents every thread, which include questions about specific aspects of Christian belief, descending into defending the faith as a whole. This can be a problematic for posters who want a space to discuss specific aspects of faith as it shuts down their discussion.

Sorry rock. I did think after a replied I was possibly breaking thread etiquette. Everyone ignore me

No worries, unicorn. I thought it was worth pointing out your question is likely to get more responses if you started a new thread, though. There is often a lot of debate on the Philosopy/Religion threads, with a lot of different opinions, so it helps if topics are well defined in order to discuss anything properly but if you aren't used to posting on these boards you may not have seen how unwieldy the threads can get.

• The great commission is just that. Matthew 10 even goes as far as commanding us to raise the dead: Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 *Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

And the commission given by Jesus at the end of Mark includes the power to pick up poisonous snakes without them hurting you (some churches practice this, and subsequently end up in hospital/die)

Do you get to choose/opt in/out of what bits of the commission to follow. Why doesn't anyone chose to raise the dead. The NHS would save a fortune.

The doctrine of atonement is wholly incomprehensible - do not waste your life trying to understand it - it is a blind alley.

I agree, Blossom, the doctrine of atonement as found in Christianity is incomprehensible. When it comes to befuddling notions, the atonement is up there with the trinity!

But maybe its enigmatic nature reflects the fact that the Bible is a library of books rather than a book of chapters. Different authors. Different agendas. Trying to extract a consistent, coherent message from the narrative, taken as a whole, is a challenge.

And actually, considering what is written in the canonical Gospels and knowing something of the early history of Christianity, I think there is sufficient material available to moot the possibility that Jesus’ own understanding of his mission didn’t involve dying on a cross for the sins of mankind. (A rather controversial idea, I do realise, but worth considering.)

For example:

Luke 10:25-28

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your</span> <span class="italic">soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, Love your neighbour as yourself.' "
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

It seems to me that Jesus was much more concerned about a return to the original purity of the Commandments in the OT than setting up a whole new religion around a novel atonement doctrine based on the circumstances of his death. He was instead championing the Jewish idea that if the nation of Israel repented and loved God and man as the Law decreed, a new golden age of a paradise on earth would be ushered in.

Love is what it was all about - a simple message that, unlike the atonement, doesn’t require mental contortions or a variety of philosophical theories to try to make sense of it. Jesus’ God was one who delighted in mercy, not sacrifice (see Matt 9:13, 12:7 and Hosea 6:6).

So I think St Paul muddied the waters by introducing in his writings the idea of Jesus’ death on the cross as a means of bringing about the forgiveness of human sins. I can see that there is an atavistic lure to the sacrifice story - and Pauline Christianity has been an amazingly successful worldwide religion on the back of it – but I don’t personally think it was what Jesus intended.

The concept of the atonement is alluded to, albeit to a lesser extent, in the Gospels. (The men who wrote the Gospels down would have already been exposed to and influenced by Paul’s letters.) Yet I think it is possible to discern in them the original underlying story of Jesus, as it was understood before Paul’s doctrinal additions.

Unicorn

Just because the bible doesn't name other children Adam and Eve had, and their children, leading very quickly to cousins and second cousins, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. Remember God said to go forth and multiply. Also Adam is said to have lived 930 years (Gen 5:4).m so Dan you imagine how many kids there were?!