I found myself in a discussion with one of those adamantly believing Christians. Initially I merely expressed somewhat incoherently the failure of religion to support my mom. You see... every few years my mom starts going back to church because she feels she can not cope with life otherwise. For a while she'll feel great having been "forgiven" for her sins. Then she'll feel guilty for not imposing christian "values" upon myself and my brother and for not having consistently imposed them on herself. This has usually resulted in her enacting new restrictions on us, a big argument between her and my self, her and my brother, her vs me and my brother, and her vs my dad. Eventually we'll come to a compromise, her guilt will be assuaged and with time the retrictions will elapse as her spiritual crisis recedes. The most recent bout of this started some time last year when her grandmother died and she was reminded of how much of a spiritual inspiration her grandmother had been. The difference this time is that she could not exert control over me since I'm an adult, and what control she might think to exert over my brother is immediately rebuffed by his extremely defiant nature. She expressed concern that she never taught me or my brother christian religion well enough... I deflected that right away by recounting the basics of christian theology but didn't really assuage her concern because I still reject it. My brother on the other hand... well... lets just say that his knowledge of Christianity is limited to that such a thing as christianity exists and it must be right, but he has no interest in actually finding anything out about it. As the normal means for phasing out her spiritual woes is not going to work this time, I don't know how long it will take for her to get back to normal, or even if she will. One thing of great concern to me is her adherence to doctrine without any reasoning.

I have discussed with her homosexuality and the bible, we went through the rounds of leviticus being overruled by the coming of Jesus, Jesus himself never discussing homosexuality at all, and the origins of those passages condemning homosexuality in the new testament being dubious as best. After all that I asked her why she would still have a problem with homosexuality if by her own admission there is not sound basis for opposition to it on biblical terms. It was like she'd forgotten the past hour of discussion, because her answer was "because I have faith in the bible." She is willing to allow her faith in a book whose messages in question are of dubious origin to supercede her relationship with her son, and here's the kicker, among the reasons she "needs" religion is because she's having difficulty with her relationship with her son.

Is there something I'm missing here, some additional factor I'm not considering as to why blind reasonless faith should supercede real life family?

In any case... I'm digressing from what I intended to talk about, which is the Christian concept of forgiveness.

The Christian way as it was defined to me in that discussion was "knowing that we've been forgiven through the blood of Christ and we by God's grace we are able to become better people because of that."

I took objection to that. Many, including myself, find it to be the epitome of immorality to let an innocent man take the blame and the punishment for one's own moral faults and would find a religion based on the idea of the perfectly moral jesus dying for their sins to be abhorrent and refuse to thrust their sins upon an innocent or anyone else, preferring instead to take personal responsibility for their moral failures to such an incredibly immoral action. I maintain that I was not a party to the death of jesus nor am I automatically subject to the covenant made by him suffer for the sins of those who would thrust them upon him, nor will I enter into such an arrangement even after the death itself has taken place as doing so would still be to reap rewards from an cowardly and artificial cession of responsibility.

The other side of christian metaphyiscs presents a God whose duty is to punish the wicked and apparently anyone who doesn't beg him not to punish them is considered wicked, regardless of what or how many sins they have committed while those who do beg him to withold punishment are granted a complete amnesty.

We are punished for our sins but not through divine torment. We are subject to the consequences of immoral behavior through earthly means (for example, a liar no longer being trusted) and spiritual means as our consciences demand better of us and demand that we rectify our misdeeds. No one can take away those consequences simply for the asking. No forgiveness from god will mean a thing to someone who has not forgiven himself, nor will forgiveness from god be of importance to one who has already forgiven himself. God is not necessary for forgiveness nor redemption. My mom never forgave herself for a number of things in her life, and all the prayer over the years, all the things she's thought god wanted her to do to make up for it never took away the fact that she did it and she has never gotten over it. God's forgiveness meant nothing to her because she never forgave herself; God's forgiveness means little to me because I know those wrongs which I have committed can never be assuaged by someone who was not a party to them and those wrongs which have already been rectified require nothing further.

The contrary thesis, that it is God's divine right to exact spiritual punishment through eternal torment upon anyone who does not beg his forgiveness and his assistance in rectification of their wrongdoings is disgusting to me. If this approach to metaphysics is correct, I would sooner opt for eternal torment and lead a rebellion against the great oppressor that is god than to cower before and praise so unjust and unworthy a would-be redeemer.