Atonement - satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.

Forgive - to grant pardon of or remission of an offence; absolve.

It seems to me that these terms conflict in the traditional Christian interpretation. If there is forgiveness, why atonement? If atonement, why forgiveness?

To put it simply, if I owe a debt to my neighbor, there are two ways in which it can be satisfied: 1) I repay him (atone), or 2) He forgives the debt. In which scenario can the debt be both forgiven and atoned?

can you remove the black color for your font for us cool people with the slick skin?

So if you beat your neighbours car with a bat for no reason you'd find it enough to just repair the damage without in anyway apologizing?

Not really the strawman I was looking for, but ok. In terms of Christianity, it was my Great grandfather who beat up your car with a bat well before either of us were born.

If, on the other hand, I back out of my driveway, don't see you coming and we have a fender bender, does my apology suffice? I think not. No matter how sorry I am, you still expect atonement. Speaking in a strictly legal sense, what good is your forgiveness if atonement is required? Also, does my atonement have any bearing on whether I seek or am granted forgiveness?

I'm not saying that forgiveness cannot co-exist with atonement, but I do question the necessity for both in every circumstance. In the case of Christianity, God seems unable to grant forgiveness unless there is atonement first, and this is consistent throughout the Bible. In the OT, forgiveness was granted after atonement was made through sacrifice. The same holds in the NT, only substitute the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

As I understand it, the primary meaning of atonement is to reconcile a relationship between two parties so that they are back again on good terms with each other after some injury. The necessary conditions to achieve atonement are that the injurer must ask for forgiveness and the injured party must grant it. Reparations may or may not be necessary and are not sufficient by themselves. For instance, if the injurer must be forced to make reparations by legal means but does not request forgiveness and is not forgiven, then animosity will remain between the two parties and atonement does not occur.

Could you consider that the concept of atonement or forgiveness are irrelevant and do not exist in an eternity for the development of God’s children. Think the movie Ground Hog Day. Think no sin, just bad decisions to learn from. How about this:
Hitler dies and goes before God for discernment of his earth life. (not a judgment)
God to Hitler: You really messed-up didn’t you?
Hitler to God: Ya, I think so.
God to Hitler: Well, try to do better next time.

So your going after original sin? I don't feel babies getting a bath apolagize or attone. They do these for sins they commit later when they understand and are responsible.

wut?

I don't want to derail on this point, as it really has nothing to do with atonement vs. forgiveness. But 'original sin' or 'the fall of man' or 'the curse of sin' is necessary doctrine if atonement is required for all mankind.

The thread, however, is better served if you address the rest of my post.

I guessing that when the injured party "forgives" the injurer even though the injurer did not seek atonement, attonement cannot occur. Say someone put a minor scratch in your car and knows it but drives off without apology. Maybe since your car is old or the scratch is very minor you might say "its alright I forgive you". The other driver would still worry about your possible ill feelings towards him, and you would still worry that the person would be negligent around you in the future. So this might be an example where atonement, meaning reconciliation between two parties, would not be acheived even with forgiveness.

It seems to me that the case is always made where forgiveness is required for the relationship, and I'm perfectly willing to grant that. But the Christian teaching is that there is judgement, so I'm focusing on the co-requirement of atonement and forgiveness in a legal sense. Strictly speaking, these terms define two independent actions.

Let's remove the emotional aspect of it, and say we're talking about a financial debt I owe. If I pay off the debt, it has been 'atoned', not forgiven. Should the lender forgive the debt, then it is not atoned. Speaking to the debt, it cannot both be atoned and forgiven.

Can God forgive man without atonement? Can God atone without forgiveness?

You forgot 3) Someone else pays the debt.

In Christianity it is Christ who paid. That payment is applied to those who accept, but not to those who reject. If you don't accept Christ's payment then you must make it. The doctrinal term for what Christ did on the cross is substitutionary atonement.

It's more commonly known as scapegoating, and it's generally regarded as an immoral practice, which is why we no longer find it acceptable in society today.

No, I didn't forget anything. I was being more charitable than Janabis by calling this atonement, rather than scapegoating.

Regarding the bold, are we forgiven?

Here and now, I officially accept Christ's atoning sacrifice. Problem is I don't really believe it it's necessary and I'm just hedging. Now what?

"I accept" but "I don't really believe".

Hmmm.

I know it's typical for religious folks to be non-confrontational and intentionally vague when responding, but it would help matters along if you would be concise with your critique.

And surely you know my statement is meant to provoke. Can I let someone I don't really know pay off my debt? Sure I can. But am I in any way obligated to them? If so, they have provided no atonement, only a transfer of debt.

Believing in Christ means repenting of sin(you must believe you're guilty) and accepting Him as Savior (which also requires belief) - so, saying you accept but don't believe is contradictory.

If you accept Christ, you are no longer obligated for your sins.

After one believes and accepts Jesus / God, can one commit sin? If so, are those sins forgiven as well?

So I cannot accept atonement without believing I'm guilty? No hedging, eh? Am I still covered for accepting atonement when I still believed?

If I believe Christ, and I forgiven, or atoned? Not trying to be obtuse, but I've not seen anyone address this specifically.

And in the case of religion, Your debtor set it up so that you would end up in debt, and then used atonement to transfer the debt from himself to himself.

You all might read about the moral influence view of the atonement that "teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. It is one of the oldest views of the atonement in Christian theology and a prevalent view for most of Christian history . " (wiki)

In this view Christ's death was a matyrdom for inspirational purposes and was not about reparations and not like paying a financial debt.

Nice response. Thank you for addressing the OP.

Ultimately, I think that doctrine is Biblicaly insufficient, and most Christian denomination would agree. 'The wages of sin is Death'. The Bible is quite clear that there is a penalty for sin. This penalty was paid by animal sacrifice and literal scapegoating under Jewish law, and by Christ's death under the New Covenant. While the point you raise is valid as to the inspiration, it ultimately fails to address clear Biblical teaching.