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?

1DAD, some of these doctrines you talk of are by no way universal doctrines within Christianity. Have you ever had a look at the Ship of Fools forums? Many of these doctrinal points are discussed in great depth there (thread topics are adhered to more there ). There are many different views on 'the rapture' etc.

This does not mean the Bible is flawed, just that interpretations can be. Understanding is a life long process, it deepens, develops over time and allows for more complexity.

head not believing in something is rejecting it.

If you don't believe in Unicorns you don't believe what they essentially are, (generally believed to be) in full, can exist.

I was interested in 1DAD's mention of Calvinism earlier.

The white settlers in South Africa were profoundly influenced by the doctrine of predestination. They were convinced they were the elect and the blacks were the damned. The apartheid system grew out of the Calvinistic roots of Afrikaner society.

Nowadays people are horrified that such racism was ever tolerated. On the other hand the religious prejudice - ‘religionism’ - in the Bible and later Christian writings that legitimised racism in the minds of the white Afrikaners is an influence to this day in many societies worldwide.

I would like Christians to substitute believer and non-believer/believer in a different religion with white and black at every point in the Bible where a distinction is made and see how it sounds.

It might be argued that - unlike with being black - people can do something about being a non-Christian but I don’t think this is the case. Whether you are religious or not is, in my opinion, an innate trait and the particular way your religiosity is manifest is mainly determined by geography/cultural background.

Many conservative Christians will tell you outright that you are not going to heaven if you are a non-believer. Liberal Christians are more likely to prevaricate and say that they know they are going to heaven and as for you, that’s up to God.

Even the softer statement of the liberal Christian would not be acceptable if it were a white person saying the same thing to a black person. So why is it acceptable for a believer to say it to a non-believer?

Whether or not there is a heaven or not is immaterial, the mere idea of an afterlife that discriminates on religious grounds has a malign influence on society. Sikhism holds the possibility of heaven open to non-Sikhs in its holy writings, so discriminatory afterlives are not a given.

It is my hope that in the future people will be more aware of religionism in their holy books just as they have become more aware of prejudices against gay people and women.

head not believing in something is rejecting it

But you were talking about what that thing stands for. A God who is all into love and kindness and mercy sounds brill. I'd like that. But there's no evidence that that God exists. What I am rejecting is the God of the bible. Too right i'm rejecting that. And a god who was my moral superior would reject that God too!

would much prefer to believe in Unicorns than the God of the bible.

Unicorns are mentioned in the bible :)

head, I disagree with your interpretation of God in the Bible, though. So, if my interpretation is more accurate than your's, all that is certain is that you reject an incorrect perception of God.

I disagree with your interpretation of God in the Bible,

Well see, I haven't interpreted it. I've read it. I've read what God done. How does one interpret it so that dead babies floating face down in water are the result of the actions of a loving God?

you reject an incorrect perception of God.

Jesus spoke about Noah as if it happened how it says it did. Did Jesus have a wrong interpretation?

No.

Rockpebblestone and hear in lies the problem with the bible, its just not very good. It is whatever (almost) you want it to be. Like you said the rapture is a point of great debate. It can be used to lift people up and beat people down. If it is suppose to be gods word either god either is a total loon or it is a flawed writing of humans and not divine in the first place.

So I have given my interpretation on the Bible on this matter, which is on the whole a fairly recognised stance amongst a huge part of the Christian faith, especially Mark 16:15-16. I come from a religious background. Many of my friends are religious. Its only when I really started to read the bible I started to notice what a crock it was. Now as Rockpebblestone pointed out not all Christians interpret the bible the same, how could you its so contradictory. Its very nice that Rockpebblestone does not follow the common idea that you must accept Jesus to go to heaven. I always thought that idea was a bit harsh. My dad was an atheist and I remember this causing hue concern and worry to if he would have gone to Heaven. Of course the church of England in its own wishy washy way danced around the subject because the bible is bang out of order and they didn't want to say no neither did they want to say yes. This sort of nonsense is not benign it really hurts people and causing them suffering. I think in the end she kind of guessed he must have gone to heaven because he was the kindest man you could ever meet, so how could you believe in a god that would condemn him to hell. Even though the weight of scripture would suggest the gate were closed to him as a non believer. I guess in the end my mum believed what she wanted to believe. But the torment of him not going to heaven really was hard on her. All that pain over an unjust god that doesn't exist.

But if you start to pick and choose scripture and go your own way at little at what stage are you not following the religion in terms of its historic purpose? I don't think many Christians would agreed with Rockpebblestone 100 years ago? With so many versions of Christianity, many different, many taking their stance from the bible which church are the true followers of God? So does religion evolve or is that evolution evidence that it was never something divine and set in stone, just a human expression that moves with the times?

Rockpebblestone does not follow the common idea that you must accept Jesus to go to heaven.

You misrepresent me 1DAD, that is not what I said in my posts.

I am confused? did you not say you believe you can go to heaven even if you have no knowledge of Jesus?

If you are following very tight high standards it insulates you a. from breaking a tiny rule and saying 'oh well that's it then, i'm screwed, no need to stick to anything now and b. needing to 'sin' if circumstances really demand it, but acknowledging that that isnt the 'normal' way to live, and/or if the circumstances were different. .eg killing someone who wants to kill you because your body wont let you do otherwise.. you can ask forgiveness afterward and hope to get it, but have taken the risk and are conscious its not 'normal'.

basically it safeguards against becoming totally bestial..

it does make me wonder why we see 'progression' in society as licencing and understanding bad behaviour..

No conscious or fully realised knowledge (in terms knowing about the historical Jesus as the Bible depicts Him) would be a more accurate way of putting it, 1DAD. And it is the possibility I said I believed in.

Rockpebblestone Ok I think I get what you mean. Its defiantly a more palatable version of Christianity, something that more people would find acceptable. I am just not convinced of it theological foundations. But at the end of the day that is your belief and of course that it is fine. There are many ways to believe under the banner of Christianity. It is far from a untied church. Personally if I was to use the bible as my guide I wouldn't come to the same conclusion of how to get salvation. I think its pretty clear about knowingly giving your self to Jesus and also suggests the concept of predestination (that of course makes you wonder what's the point then). But the bible IMO is a terrible and contradicting book.

his does not mean the Bible is flawed, just that interpretations can be. Understanding is a life long process, it deepens, develops over time and allows for more complexity

I would agree if everyone was interpreting it the same. But no, some develop their ideas on white supremacy, some on men being superior to women, some on God being disgusted with two consenting adults enjoying sex together. There's no consensus.

Is like paramedics leaving uni with widely different ideas on how to perform the most basic first aid. One believes cpr is best for someone whose heart has stopped. While another, who sat through the same lessons, believes a gentle tickle on the sole of their feet should get their heart started in no time.

And I assume you believe the message to mankind from a loving God, that has the power to determine where souls go for eternity, is more important than earthly education. So surely the bible should be even less open to contradiction than a manmade medical course.

Don't argue with God.

The arrogance of man, thinking he can argue with the omnipotent omniscient almighty!

really.. just see what your arguments sound like when you finally meet him. They will sound pretty weak

From what I have observed, it seems to me that the Bible is like a beloved old maiden aunt to many Christians. She can do no wrong in their eyes.

They watch indulgently as she waves her stick at people, shouting, ‘If you don’t accept Jesus as your saviour, you’re going straight to the fiery vats of Hell!’

‘Aw, she doesn’t really mean that,’ they say, when others look askance. ‘Auntie gives me excellent advice. She’s so wise and comforting. People just misinterpret what she says.’

But somewhere deep inside, they do know that, for all her moments of sweetness and solace, she’s still an old reactionary with some unpleasant views. Even if they can’t admit it to themselves, they feel free to ignore her advice if it jars with current secular mores

Anyway how do you know its not unicorns?.. because unicorns are never described as instigators of mass genocide doesnt mean they aren't the instigators..but we would need scripture to tell us

head, using your analogy, medical opinions do vary, medical practices have changed over time. This is not because the human body has changed dramatically but rather our understanding of it, it's complexities evolves over time. This is true for each individual and society as a whole.

Equally, as nobody has a complete understanding of God, interpretations of what is written in the Bible vary, from individual to individual, across different cultures or societies and denominations and over time.

Out
But somewhere deep inside, they do know that, for all her moments of sweetness and solace, she’s still an old reactionary with some unpleasant views. Even if they can’t admit it to themselves, they feel free to ignore her advice

I think it it rather presumptuous of you to claim, with any certainty, to know what goes on inside people's minds...

Rockpebblestone 'Equally, as nobody has a complete understanding of God, interpretations of what is written in the Bible vary, from individual to individual, across different cultures or societies and denominations and over time'. So what is the point if their is fair chance a fair few people are doing it wrong? Also I think people under estimate power of this interpretation discord to hurt people. If I was to rate god and his bible there wouldn't be many stars. Why such a contradictory book so open to interpretation? Does he want the common person to know is word or just get mislead by religious leaders who have the wrong end of the stick or using it for their own end?

There is a difference with science and religion. Yes some note worthy attempts have been made to reconcile religion and science but rarely convincingly. Often to try and reconcile religion to science big concessions have to be made, often at odds with scripture. Often it seems like science has to be distorted and squeezed to fit into the religious narrative, sometime quite creatively granted. The trouble is I don't think you can reconcile the two. One party looks to ask questions of the world, test, discover and do best with our current understanding of the real world. The other party tries to fit everything into a religious narrative and if it cant be understood it is put down to God rather than something that just cant be explained at the moment. The fundamental problem is a belief in a creative being. If you believe in such a being of course you have to fit science and the natural world into your narrative or just ignore it as some do. If you don't believe you are free to discover science and the natural world without the shackles of having to somehow fit it all down to god and link it to scripture.

I don't think its a surprise that in places where freedom of speech, science, education and rational thinking are more prevalent religious devotion dwindles.

Rock – just one small example:

Auntie says:

Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die

This advice is frowned on in modern society and rightly so. You always come across as a kind and tolerant person in your posts so I am sure you – and many other Christians like you - do feel free to ignore/filter out Auntie’s advice at times even if you are not consciously aware of doing so.

Of course it will be always very hard for a non believer to understand a believer. How can you argue with someone who truly believes they have a personal relationship with god? I guess in the same way how can you argue with someone who truly believes they have a personal relationship with invisible unicorns?

The fundamental problem is a belief in a creative being. If you believe in such a being of course you have to fit science and the natural world into your narrative or just ignore it as some do. If you don't believe you are free to discover science and the natural world without the shackles of having to somehow fit it all down to god and link it to scripture.

1DAD, or you could hold onto your religious belief whilst still continuing to discover facts about the universe without attempting to 'make it fit'.

Because we still have a incomplete picture of God and the universe around us, we can still choose to exercise faith that it does fit, albeit in a much larger but also intricate and complex manner than we appreciate at the current time.