A Genuinenly Attractive Christianity?

[Divine Insight]

This is going to be a long-winded opening post. However, the question for debate is very simple.

Question for Debate: Can there be such a thing as a genuinely attractive Christianity?

For me this is an extremely important question. It was important when I was a Christian. It would be extremely important to me if I were going to preach this religion to anyone, or try to evangelize this religion to anyone. I think this also touches on the reasons why this religion is in such hot debate continually. And why evangelism is under fire.

There seems to be fundamentally two approaches to Christianity:

The Two Schools of Thought

1. The religion is obviously fact. It doesn't need to be attractive. It's not meant to be attractive.

2. The religion is so beautiful you should want to believe it on pure faith.

Some people may believe these both to be true, but that would just mean that they would need to convince others of even twice as much. Back when I was a Christian considering becoming an evangelist preacher it came to my realization that I cannot support either of these two positions.

Let's look at them each individually.

1. The religion is obviously fact. It doesn't need to be attractive. It's not meant to be attractive.

As a Christian and potential evangelical, I found it impossible to make convincing arguments to support this reasoning. My inability to make convincing arguments for this approach also caused me to question why I should accept this as being a reason to believe in the religion. After all, if I can't even find convincing arguments to offer to others then why should I be believing it myself on these grounds?

This also seems to be the greatest riff between Christian evangelists and Atheists. If a Christian is going to hold to the above approach to Christianity then they should be expected to produce undeniable proof that the religion is true, otherwise the whole idea of a need to believe it even though it is unattractive fails.

This demand for proof (or at least convincing evidence) that this religion is true is justified, especially if it is being held out that "It doesn't need to be attractive, it's just the truth".

So this is clearly one facet of the Christian/Atheist debates.

But then there are those who claim that the religion is beautiful and that we should want to believe in it on pure faith purely because it is indeed attractive:

2. The religion is so beautiful you should want to believe it on pure faith.

As a Christian and potential evangelical, I also found it impossible to make convincing arguments to support this reasoning as well. I mean, it may seem, at first glance, that the story of Jesus sacrificing himself to "save" us from damnation might potentially be an attractive thing. However, it occurred to me that before this can be seen as an attractive thing we must first believe that we are destined to be damned in the first place. And that part is certainly not very attractive and I see no reason to first place my faith in the idea that I'm damned, just so I can place my faith in the idea that I'm now "saved". I could never make that argument to anyone on a serious level as an evangelist. And I also see no reason to buy into that myself. So once again, this approach to Christianity seems to be futile as well.

I don't see a lot of Christian evangelicals pushing this latter approach as their main theme. Probably because they too realize that it ultimately fails. It's also easy for Atheists to simply say, "I see no reason to place my faith in the idea that I need to be saved from a loving Creator". It's too easy to dismiss this approach to Christianity, thus leaving the evangelists no choice but to revert back to the first argument, that Christianity is true whether we like it or not, and then we're right back to the Atheist demanding evidence for that claim.

n any case, I'm personally pretty firm in my conclusions that neither of these two approaches to Christianity can be supported. But for this thread, I would like to ask the following questions:

Question for Debate: Can there be such a thing as a genuinely attractive Christianity?

Other related questions readers may be interested in responding to:

1. Do you feel that the first school of thought is valid? That the religion is so obviously true that it should be believed even though it may not be attractive. And perhaps that it's not even supposed to be attractive?

2. Do you feel that the religion offers so much hope that it's simply too beautiful to resist and that everyone should want to believe it just as a matter of faith?

3. Do you actually believe that both of these approaches are true. And if so, don't you think that making a rock solid case for the beauty of the religion should come first? After all, if a person can be convinced that the religion is genuinely beautiful and attractive wouldn't efforts to try to argue that it also appears to be true be far easier?

4. And finally, do you have an alternative approach that you feel does not depend on either of these?

[ttruscott]

I’m trying to figure out what I would say if I was still a Christian. As a Christian, with my God glasses on it all looked beautiful to me. I’d been indoctrinated to believe it was beautiful. However now I can’t see the beauty in it.

Now:

I see a God who put a system in place that allowed it to become corrupted with sin.

IF HE did not allow the freedom of our wills to choose sin and evil, then our supposed free choices to chose love and holiness are defunct.

I see a God who created a being that went on to become the worst monster ever.

And if you appreciated that only by a free will decision can love and holiness be real, the you would know why free will is a necessity in HIS method...

I see a God who created a place to torture all those who do not believe and worship him.

That's because you do not believe in retributive justice if it might condemn you at all.

Those who do not believe in HIM is the definition of all evil, of all eternal evil ... it is not some little thing, it is the definition of that which is against all moral goodness and rightness. No one else gets to define moral goodness as long a YHWH is on the scene.

I see a blood thirsty God who requires the slaughter of an innocent being/beast before he will forgive and cleanse sin.

Do you not know that the sacrifice of the Son was a self scrifice for our benefit???

I see a God who endorsed the human sacrifice of his own son to act as the ultimate sacrifice to deal with the problem of sin.

Sorry, no can proceed with this so far fetched and outrageous depiction of our Lord's death... Jesus WAS the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY who self sacrificed for your good!!!!

I see a God who has so far failed to deal with the problem of sin.

Amen...

but after the last sinful but good seed matures into holiness, then I suggest you hang onto your hat!!!

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

Those who do not believe in HIM is the definition of all evil, of all eternal evil ... it is not some little thing, it is the definition of that which is against all moral goodness and rightness. No one else gets to define moral goodness as long a YHWH is on the scene.

In other words, this is a religion that trains it's followers to process extreme religious arrogance and superiority in the name of YHWH.

Don't the Muslims do precisely the same thing in the name of Allah?

And have you noticed that both of these religions originate from the very same "Jealous God" fables?

Do we see any other religions on planet Earth that are as arrogant and full of self-pride as Christianity and Islam? Even Judaism seems to play down the Jealous Egotistical God concept.

Do you not know that the sacrifice of the Son was a self scrifice for our benefit???

The absurdity of this is precisely how we can know for certain that these fables are nothing more than very poorly written superstitious fables.

This "Son" that you speak of was supposedly sacrificed to the "Father" God to appease his very own wrath.

Moreover, there wasn't even anything sacrificed. This "Son" was supposedly resurrected from the dead within only three days, and then shortly after that was sent to Heaven to have everlasting life in paradise as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. How in the world could that be said to be a "sacrifice"?

If you made the same offer to mortal men you'd have them lined up for as far as the eye can see shouting, "I'll do it!" And Jesus would be nothing special at all.

In fact, soldiers, firefighters, paramedics, rescue workers, and even doctors and nurses risk their lives all the time to save others and they aren't expecting to be resurrected and sent off to heaven afterward. So mortal men give are willing to give their lives at a far greater cost than Jesus.

The Christian story of Jesus it not even remotely impressive.

And besides who called for his crucifixion? God's own priests? That doesn't say much for this God.

I see a God who endorsed the human sacrifice of his own son to act as the ultimate sacrifice to deal with the problem of sin.

Sorry, no can proceed with this so far fetched and outrageous depiction of our Lord's death... Jesus WAS the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY who self sacrificed for your good!!!!

Now you have this God actually sacrificing himself to himself to appease his own wrath. Then he floats off to heaven to sit down beside himself.

It's a pretty weird God if you ask me.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

It is not always the bright and breezy that attracts people to Christianity. As Terry Eagleton puts it in his critique of the God Delusion, when speaking of Jesus on the cross...

"Those who don’t see this dreadful image of a mutilated innocent as the truth of history are likely to be devotees of that bright-eyed superstition known as infinite human progress...

For many people the struggle of Christ represents the reality of their existence. To use the vernacular, life's a bitch and then you die. The story of christ fits that narrative pretty neatly. No wonder then that when some people reflect on the story of Jesus they find a connection in the story.

They may be attracted in the broader sense of the word, but its a kind of grim hope in adversity that they find a connection with. Nothing to do with bright lights and harps.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to post 13 by bishblaize]

I would agree with you if the story of all that brutality wasn't centered around redemption, sort of rendering warm and fuzzy in spite if it's brutality.

But I might agree that some people are attracted when it is preached as perseverance in the face of adversity.

[Zzyzx]

.

For many people the struggle of Christ represents the reality of their existence. To use the vernacular, life's a bitch and then you die. The story of christ fits that narrative pretty neatly. No wonder then that when some people reflect on the story of Jesus they find a connection in the story.

Perhaps that explains why religion does not appeal to some of us for whom life is NOT "a bitch" but is a pleasant, fulfilling, rewarding experience.

Those who are downtrodden, depressed, hopeless, self-depreciating, unsuccessful, enslaved, etc may consider life "a bitch" and look forward to the promised "afterlife" that they have been convinced exists "after you die."

All will die no matter how positive or negative their outlook. Some may think wishfully about "everlasting life" for their "soul" in an "afterlife" -- NONE of which can be shown to be anything more than imaginary. Others accept death as the rational end of life for all organisms.

[Divine Insight]

For many people the struggle of Christ represents the reality of their existence. To use the vernacular, life's a bitch and then you die. The story of christ fits that narrative pretty neatly. No wonder then that when some people reflect on the story of Jesus they find a connection in the story.

They may be attracted in the broader sense of the word, but its a kind of grim hope in adversity that they find a connection with. Nothing to do with bright lights and harps.

I think it does have to do with bright lights and harps.

After all, if the Jesus story ended with Jesus simply being killed no one would find the story attractive. We have plenty of stories of mortal men who stood for all that is good and were brutally killed for no good reason.

The thing that makes the Jesus story so "attractive" is the idea that Jesus was then magically resurrected defying reality, and ultimately triumphing over his enemies. I'm sure no one who believes in this story believes that those nasty Pharisees were resurrected when they died.

But I think also that to just focus on the story of Jesus without realizing the bigger picture is to create a false delusion. Jesus is actually not the main character in this story as much as many Christians would like to believe. On the contrary, it's the Father God who supposedly designed and planned this whole charade.

Actually the evil Pharisees had no choice if this was indeed "God's Plan".

So whilst we might be tempted to become romantically involved with some aspect of the story we need to back off and look at the bigger picture to actually see why it's not the least bit attractive in its totality.

Becoming romantically involved with little bits and pieces of it, it actually a form of delusion. Delusion by refusal to look at the bigger picture.

[OnceConvinced]

I see a God who put a system in place that allowed it to become corrupted with sin.

IF HE did not allow the freedom of our wills to choose sin and evil, then our supposed free choices to chose love and holiness are defunct.

As I've already tried to explain in another thread, if the system is created so that freewill and your use of that freewill can corrupt the rest of the system, then the system was either deliberately designed that way or flaws were unwittingly left in it. This illustrates either a malevolent God (who designed it to become corrupted once free will was exercised) or was negligent (didn't realize that it would become corrupted if free will was exercised), perhaps even incompetent.

I see a God who created a being that went on to become the worst monster ever.

And if you appreciated that only by a free will decision can love and holiness be real, the you would know why free will is a necessity in HIS method...

If I knew I was creating a creature who would later exercise its freewill and attempt to destroy and corrupt everything I created, then I would either not create that being or adjust my design so that it couldn't corrupt everything. If my creations were flawless, nothing this being did could possibly corrupt anything.

If I create this being knowing what it will do then I am malevolent. If I create this being not knowing what he would do, then I am at least ignorant. Perhaps even incompetent.

see a God who created a place to torture all those who do not believe and worship him.

That's because you do not believe in retributive justice if it might condemn you at all.

Those who do not believe in HIM is the definition of all evil, of all eternal evil ... it is not some little thing, it is the definition of that which is against all moral goodness and rightness. No one else gets to define moral goodness as long a YHWH is on the scene.

Christians seem to have different ideas about what Hell is. I was taught that it was a place you were thrown into and would die instantly. Others say it is a place of eternal suffering. If it is a place of eternal suffering then that is truly malevolent of God.

You may have different ideas than the average Christian about Hell, that makes it not quite so horrific and ugly, but the majority of Christians seem to paint it in a way that shows their God is extremely ugly.

I see a blood thirsty God who requires the slaughter of an innocent being/beast before he will forgive and cleanse sin.

Do you not know that the sacrifice of the Son was a self scrifice for our benefit???

I believed it was self sacrifice as a Christian, but now I see it as horrendous that any type of human sacrifice should be required for the cleansing and forgiveness of sin.

Even if an innocent man volunteers to take your punishment for you, that is highly immoral. If you want to say that Jesus is God, that is still very sick and ugly. Imagine if a parent were to say to their child, you shouldn't have stolen that cookie from the cookie jar. As a result of that I am going to whip myself and take your punishment for you. Imagine what a mentally screwed child that child would become? It would be considered a form of mental abuse. To have God say you are sinful and I'm gonna have myself crucified for you so that I can forgive you, is extremely sick and ugly.

God supposedly created this system. He put it all in place. He decided that if you sin you are deserving of a horrible sadistic punishment. HE set it up this way, putting himself up as the hero to save us from the villain which is also himself.

It's like the mafia boss who demands protection money from the shop owner so that he won't have to send his goons in to beat them up and smash up the shop. If the Mafia Boss says, "hey, I'll pay the protection money for you" does that make the Mafia boss a good guy?

I see a God who endorsed the human sacrifice of his own son to act as the ultimate sacrifice to deal with the problem of sin.

Sorry, no can proceed with this so far fetched and outrageous depiction of our Lord's death... Jesus WAS the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY who self sacrificed for your good!!!!

Can you not see that any requirement of human sacrifice is sick and immoral? Does it not seem extremely sick and twisted that God would demand a sacrifice to protect us from his own wrath? Doesn't it seem even more sick and twisted that he would put himself up as the savior to rescue us from his own wrath? Even if God volunteered to have himself take our punishment, it is still extremely sick and ugly that this type of thing would be needed before God will be willing to forgive.

I'm glad that we as humans are able to forgive others without having someone suffer to do it. When I forgive my child I don't demand any one die a horrible death first. A human doesn't need anyone to suffer and has no need to put even themselves up to be punished when they can simply choose to forgive. No slaughter of any innocent being should be necessary before forgiveness can be offered.

It seems humans are bigger than God in this scenario. God demands someone must pay first before he will forgive. Humans can simply forgive because they love the person who wronged them. Humans can forgive and forget. God will only forget if blood is spilt first. If no blood is spilt then he holds a grudge to the point where he will make a big deal about all your wrongs on Judgment Day and air all the dirty laundry in public.

I don't know about you, but people sometimes do and say things that I consider a sin against me. But I choose to let those things go unless they are continuous repetitions of the same sin. You know I forget those things that aren't regular. I have trouble recalling details about certain stuff that was even as recent as a year ago. I just don't hold onto those things. My girlfriend and I have issues from time to time and guess what. A year down the track I can't recall certain details of certain things. She even asks me about stuff that happened with my exes and I have to say "I just don't remember clearly all the details now. It was a long time ago, all I know is that she did this or did that." You forgive and you forget. Not God though. Unless blood is spilt he holds onto those things and will unleash his wrath way way off in the distant future some time. What a sad miserable being he must be to constantly hold onto wrongs that have been committed against him.

[bluethread]

IMHO, I personally feel that you are just bastardizing the term. Even though your purpose may actually be to try to make it into something positive. You're still basically destroying and rejecting the actual Gospel claims of Christianity.

So I personally don't see where your views can honestly be called "Christianity".

I just don't accept your labeling. That's the only thing I know to tell you.

Though I disagree with Elijah John in some areas, I do not recall him ever referring to himself as a "Christian". I see him as trying to view the Apostolic Writings in the light of the Tanakh. I would say that it is "Christianity" as the mamzer, since it tends to deny it's heritage as recorded in the Tanakh. Now, if Christians were more inclined to recognize Yeshua as HaMeshiach Adonai, and not "The Christ" of Rome, they might be considered legitimate children of Adonai, whether they are attractive to the goyim or not.

[Zzyzx]

.

Though I disagree with Elijah John in some areas, I do not recall him ever referring to himself as a "Christian".

It might be prudent to check EJ's user-groups where Christian appears three times.

[bluethread]

.

Though I disagree with Elijah John in some areas, I do not recall him ever referring to himself as a "Christian".

It might be prudent to check EJ's user-groups where Christian appears three times.

Point taken. Given that, I would agree that his views are not Christian. They appear to be more Scriptural than most Christian views.