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?

[FarWanderer]

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.

Infinite retributive justice is wrong no matter who it's applied to. Even if I were exempt from the system, I'd still reject it with all my being.

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.

Especially not ttruscott. Good thing YHWH's not actually around eh? That means ttruscott is free to go around defining people who disagree with his worldview as evil.

[bishblaize]

Just to clarify at the outset Im not a christian.

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.

The end of a tale is not the only determinant in whether the overall story is happy , sad or ambivalent. Both Care Bears the Movie and One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest end on a relative high note, but they're non-comparable in terms of experience.

Indeed its questionable whether the tale of jesus has a happy ending. If your interpretation is that he rose gloriously from the grave, cocking a snoot at death and his tormentors, then that's a happy ending. If your take is that man just threw away his first/latest chance at being saved, turning instead to brutality and petty mindedness, then its not such a happy ending.

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.

Where exactly does it say that everyone must look at the bigger picture? Is there an agreed tenet that says its better to look at things as a whole?

Unless no-one's told me, there is no objective set of rules, written somewhere in the ether, that says for an individual to find what they need from any given medium they must consider it in its totality. If you personally take the viewpoint that things are better if they fit within a single overarching coherent framework, then fine, you should consider things in those terms.

However many people are inspired by a single character, moment, element or aspect of what they perceive in life. If people are inspired by the story of the death of Jesus in isolation, then they're inspired. If they're inspired by a single story in the bible, or even a single moment in a story, then they're inspired. To say that their inspiration is wrong or unjustified, well, that's just imposing your beliefs on theirs. Who's to say that their belief is wrong for them?

You may in return say that such a viewpoint isn't rational, or even reasonable. But I've never really found humanity to be rational or reasonable. At its best and worse humanity seems to be impulsive, contradictory, inspired, intuitive and naïve. No surprise then that the underpinnings of its big religions echo these aspects.

I would briefly add that personally I think that all thoughts about things constitutes a form of delusion, whether that’s trying to squeeze the world into terms of rational vs irrational, whether that’s interpreting the world through the work of a perceived deity or interpreting the world through art or music.

They're all interpretations, not reality itself. If they suit your needs for a given purpose, great. If they make you happy, even better. If a certain set of thoughts or beliefs harms others, or just simply makes your life worse, then its probably not desirable for either the individual or the collective. But in abstract terms I can't agree that one form of these thoughts is, isolated from context, better than another.

[Zzyzx]

.

To say that their inspiration is wrong or unjustified, well, that's just imposing your beliefs on theirs. Who's to say that their belief is wrong for them?

Has someone in this thread said beliefs were wrong?

You may in return say that such a viewpoint isn't rational, or even reasonable. But I've never really found humanity to be rational or reasonable.

Should we, therefore, consider unreasonable or irrational (or insane?) viewpoints to be valid because they are common?

[bishblaize]

Has someone in this thread said beliefs were wrong?

I would say that asserting that said belief constitutes a 'Delusion by refusal to look at the bigger picture' is a tacit suggestion that such a thing is wrong.

Delusion may or may not be seen as wrong, but from the context I would guess its thought to be in this case. I'm happy to be corrected on this point as it was only how I read it.

Should we, therefore, consider unreasonable or irrational (or insane?) viewpoints to be valid because they are common?

Firstly, just because something isn't rational doesn't automatically make it irrational.

As for validity. Abstracted from context, would you be so bold as to draw judgement on the validity of another's beliefs? We're not talking about, say, whether fundamentalist christians should be presidents, whether Islamic theocracies help their people or whether creationism should be taught as science. This is very much a thread of the personal motivations for people to take up (or not) christianity, and in this context I'd say whatever someone believes is valid for them, if no-one else.

[Divine Insight]

This is very much a thread of the personal motivations for people to take up (or not) christianity, and in this context I'd say whatever someone believes is valid for them, if no-one else.

Actually, in a sense you are right. I didn't make it clear in the OP that I'm basically addressing evangelism, or the preaching of Christianity.

Whatever someone believes for themselves and does not try to convince others of is their own business. I have no problem with people who keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

The real question is for those who think Christianity should be preached, evangelized, or proselytized to others.

Which approach would you use to try to convince others that Christianity is true?

If you preach to me that it doesn't need to be attractive and that I should just accept it because it's "obviously true", then am I now within my right to ask you to prove that it's true?

Moreover, why in the world should I believe something that even you confess is unattractive without proof?

On the other hand, if you preach to me that Christianity is "attractive" and that I should just believe it on pure faith because it's so attractive, then it's up to you to convince me that it is indeed attractive.

But if you are just going to turn away and say, "This is only a personal belief of mine and I'm not asking you to believe anything", well, then the conversation is over. And there is no continual activism to preach, proselytize, or evangelize Christianity.

In other words if someone is going to DEBATE, that someone else should accept Christianity then they need to give arguments to support that debate.

I don't see how they can claim simultaneously that Christianity is both attractive and unattractive simultaneously.

So they need to choose their debate.

Are they going to argue that Christianity simply must be believed whether we like it or not because it's clearly true? If so, then shouldn't they then need to provide convincing evidence for why anyone should believe that Christianity is true?

If they are going to argue that Christianity is so beautiful and attractive that people should want to believe in it as a matter of pure faith, then shouldn't that be the focus of their arguments?

Now some people might try to argue that it's "both". However, for anyone who claims that it's "both" I would like to simplify things for them by asking that they simply try to convince me that it's Beautiful first. Then we can discuss whether or not it might be true after that has been established.

I personally can't see how a belief that some God had to have his only begotten son brutally butcher on a pole by corrupt priest supposedly because I am less than a loving person worthy of God's love could ever be such a beautiful scenario that I would want to believe it as a matter of pure faith.

I think that would be an extremely difficult argument to make right there alone.

Moreover, doesn't that whole scenario already demand a prerequisite belief that we all deserve damnation and must be saved from our deserved fate? How in the world is that so beautiful that it should be believed on pure faith?

It seems to me that any argument that the religion should be believe on pure faith simply because it's so beautiful that we should want to believe it on pure faith is a misguided argument and must necessarily always fail.

This then requires that if the debate for Christian evangelism is to be kept afloat, we have no choice but to concede that it's not so beautiful after all, and therefore the only reason to believe it at this point is that we have NO CHOICE but to believe it simply because it is being claimed to be true whether we like it or not.

And then we get into the debates about proving this claim.

I personally don't think there exists any compelling arguments for why this religion should be believed to be true. Especially when we can clearly see that it's not even an attractive scenario.

This religion is clearly a disgrace to humanity. It hold humanity responsible for all the ills of the world. That is a disgrace to humanity. It's also a disgrace to the creator. Especially if this creator had some Master Plan. Because apparently this creator's Master Plan included the necessary requirement that humanity is a disgrace.

But I do think you are right about one thing. If anyone wants to believe in this religion they most certainly should confess that this is simply something they would like to do on a personal and private level. And not be trying to preach, proselytize, or evangelize it to other people.

Especially when these other people are saying:

1. I see no reason to believe that it's true.

and

2. You may think it's attractive or beautiful, but to me it's neither beautiful nor attractive.

End of conversation.

That should be the end of the conversation right there. To continue to DEBATE it requires trying to defend either #1 That it so true it can't be denied. Or #2 That's its somehow beautiful and attractive even though it may not appear that way at first.

I personally think that both of these arguments are going to fail miserably.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

I'm not entirely clear about whether you're saying that the arguments to convince anybody are not convincing, or the arguments to convince you personally are not convincing.

If the former, well, the simple fact is that there appear to be around 2 billion christians in the world. I can't even begin to guess what number were born into christianity and what number converted in their lifetime. But even if we say that 99% of all christians were either born into it or converted because everyone around them did, you're still left with millions that were convinced by the message that the Christians are making.

So if arguments A and B are the only relevant arguments, and neither are convincing, then we're left with a paradox, no?

A few options spring to mind

A is in fact true and/or
B is in fact true and/or
C, D, E etc also exist and/or
A and B (and maybe C, D, E) are convincing for some and not others and/or
there aren't actually 2 billion christians in the world

There are probably many more options.

If is its about why you are not convinced then plainly only you can answer that and your answer is inviolable.

Responding to one specific point, its easy for something to be both attractive and unattractive. It merely relies on the perception of the viewer in the moment. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A different viewer, a different moment, a different perception.

On a different tack, for anyone to change their mind about anything there has be a readiness to do so. Some people refuse to change their mind even in the face of overwhelming physical evidence, and no-one can say there's such evidence about (most) spiritual beliefs.

With religion, for someone to be converted by an idea (as opposed to by cultural or military pressure) its no different. A lot of people convert during hard times in their life for the very reason that they're more ready for the message then. They're softened up. Same reason they advertise beer during football games. People are ready for the message.

Whether its hearing about hope when they have none, whether its the absence of reason when reason feels cold, whether its sharing a burden with a community of likeminded others or whether its the belief that their late mother is still around in some way. I'm never surprised those concepts hit home.

Compare that with my opening line when asked about my beliefs - 'I don't exist, I is just a figment of my imagination'. Not quite so cuddly.

Of course when people proselytise they invariably just cast a net as far and wide as they can, hoping to reach as many as possible receptive to their message. Obviously that includes a lot of people for whom the message either bounces off neutrally (like me) or who are offended by the nature or perhaps the existence of the message (my perception of you, which may be wrong). For some people the message must appear ridiculous, but it may not be for all.

[Divine Insight]

I'm not entirely clear about whether you're saying that the arguments to convince anybody are not convincing, or the arguments to convince you personally are not convincing.

Actually there's a problem associated with this. If this God is the creator of all humans, then there should be no humans who are not convinced of it. But clearly there are billions of them who are not convinced of it. In fact, even within the Abrahamic religions there is great diversity in what to believe. Clearly the Jews, Christians and Muslism don't believe the same things. And they are totally unconvinced of each others religions.

And each of these is internally divided into disagreeing factions. Just look at Christianity alone, one of the most divisive of all the Abrahamic religions. Christianity is split into Catholicism and a myriad of disagreeing protesting Protestantisms. Even the Catholics don't agree among themselves, and every new pope has different ideas of what Catholicism ought to be.

The Protestantisms are truly joke. And the reason they are a joke is because the originally protested against the authority of the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ, and they rejected that any mortal man (like a Pope) should interpret the Bible for other people. They demanded that people should be able to read the Bible themselves and allow the Holy Spirit to guide them in their understanding. But this is clearly a joke since Protestant evangelists are often trying to push their personal interpretations of the Bible down the throats of their evangelical victims.

In fact, it's also a joke to claim that so many people are "Christian" just because they have religions that are based upon the stories of Jesus. These sects passionately disagree with other all the time, yet when it comes time to take a census on how many people are "Christian" they are quick to count each other so they can end up with a large number of "believers". The problem is that they all believe something entirely different actually.

But yes, you are correct, if you want to debate with me then I'm the one you need to convince.

If the former, well, the simple fact is that there appear to be around 2 billion christians in the world. I can't even begin to guess what number were born into christianity and what number converted in their lifetime. But even if we say that 99% of all christians were either born into it or converted because everyone around them did, you're still left with millions that were convinced by the message that the Christians are making.

The reason so many people believe in Christianity, and Islam, is because both of these religions were quite socially violent toward non-believers, and to any believers who might open reject the religion because they no longer believe it.

This kind of extreme social pressure has gone on for about 2000 years. Christianity has also been extremely evangelical making great efforts to convert people through missionary works etc. So again, it should not be surprising that many people caved into the evangelical pressure. It's not like people are flocking to the religion, it's just the opposite. The religion has been constantly badgering the people and proclaiming that if they fail to believe in the religion they are immoral people who are less than respectable, etc.

Not to mention the threat that some invisible God will damn them to hell if they fail to believe. That's some pretty powerful brainwashing tactics right there.

So if arguments A and B are the only relevant arguments, and neither are convincing, then we're left with a paradox, no?

We're not left with any paradox at all. Because most Christians probably aren't even convinced that the religoin is true. They simply accept that it's true for social reason. Or maybe they have reasons as you have just now. Maybe they just believe in the religion because they see a lot of other people appear to believe in it. This is the "Monkey See Monkey Do" principle in action kind of verifying that we most likely did evolved from apes.

A few options spring to mind

A is in fact true and/or
B is in fact true and/or
C, D, E etc also exist and/or
A and B (and maybe C, D, E) are convincing for some and not others and/or
there aren't actually 2 billion christians in the world

There are probably many more options.

You forgot to add your very own argument that you are currently making. Some people might just believe in the religion because they see so many other people apparently believing it so they feel that it's a good bet to just go along with the crowd.

If is its about why you are not convinced then plainly only you can answer that and your answer is inviolable.

The reasons I am not convinced are rock solid, not because they are inviolable, but because they are true. And their truth is self-evident for anyone who is sincerely interested in looking at the reasons with an open mind.

Responding to one specific point, its easy for something to be both attractive and unattractive. It merely relies on the perception of the viewer in the moment. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A different viewer, a different moment, a different perception.

This is why it's important to consider all perspectives and not to cling to just a single perspective.

On a different tack, for anyone to change their mind about anything there has be a readiness to do so. Some people refuse to change their mind even in the face of overwhelming physical evidence, and no-one can say there's such evidence about (most) spiritual beliefs.

I think the atheists have shown quite profoundly that there is indeed overwhelming evidence against these ancient mythologies. Also many atheists are people who have already exhibited an ability to change their mind since many atheists were actually believes at one time. They also realize that they believed for all the wrong reason, and not because the religion was ever truly convincing.

Usually the reasons people believe in these religions are for irrational reasons. Not because they actually sat down and studied them to see if they were truly making sense. Very few Christians actually do that. And the ones who do reveal the flaws in their reasoning as they try to convince others.

With religion, for someone to be converted by an idea (as opposed to by cultural or military pressure) its no different. A lot of people convert during hard times in their life for the very reason that they're more ready for the message then. They're softened up. Same reason they advertise beer during football games. People are ready for the message.

It's actually not in favor of religion to suggest that weak or desperate people are the most vulnerable to believe in it. I'll certainly grant that this is true however.

Whether its hearing about hope when they have none, whether its the absence of reason when reason feels cold, whether its sharing a burden with a community of likeminded others or whether its the belief that their late mother is still around in some way. I'm never surprised those concepts hit home.

I'm not surprised the people turn to religion for those reasons either. But once again this doesn't say much for religions other than they find easy prey in the weak and desperate.

Compare that with my opening line when asked about my beliefs - 'I don't exist, I is just a figment of my imagination'. Not quite so cuddly.

So you believe in a religion that threatens to cast people into eternal damnation if they fail to worship a jealous God because that seems more "cuddly" to you?

Sounds like a loosing argument there if you ask me.

Of course when people proselytise they invariably just cast a net as far and wide as they can, hoping to reach as many as possible receptive to their message. Obviously that includes a lot of people for whom the message either bounces off neutrally (like me) or who are offended by the nature or perhaps the existence of the message (my perception of you, which may be wrong). For some people the message must appear ridiculous, but it may not be for all.

The very idea that this religion needs to be proselytized is a huge red flag right there. What kind of a creator would have created a justice system that is dependent upon the success of mortal proselytizers and evangelists?

And what kind of a creator would have created competing religions to further confuse people?

Even within the Abrahamic crowd we see extreme divisiveness and competition.

Are all Christian Protestants going to hell because they have rejected the Body of Christ in the Catholic Church and they refuse to listen to God's divinely ordained spokesperson in the Pope?

And if the Christian Protestants can protest against Catholicism and expect to find salvation then why can't the Muslims find salvation in Muhammad? And the Jews in Yahweh directly?

These religions are extremely divisive and only serve to put each other down along with putting down the whole rest of the world as well.

Surely they did not originate from the creator of this reality.

[Thunder9010]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]The true measure of the value of any religion is its capacity to make bad men/women good and good men/women better. If it cannot do that effectively, it is a useless religion.

One cannot blame the religion for bad people within the religion. One cannot credit the religion for the good people in it. One must actually analyze how effective the religion is at actually causing the good or bad to happen.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]The true measure of the value of any religion is its capacity to make bad men/women good and good men/women better. If it cannot do that effectively, it is a useless religion.

One cannot blame the religion for bad people within the religion. One cannot credit the religion for the good people in it. One must actually analyze how effective the religion is at actually causing the good or bad to happen.

How, exactly, do you propose that the effectiveness of a religion in making people "good or better" be measured?

[Thunder9010]

.

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]The true measure of the value of any religion is its capacity to make bad men/women good and good men/women better. If it cannot do that effectively, it is a useless religion.

One cannot blame the religion for bad people within the religion. One cannot credit the religion for the good people in it. One must actually analyze how effective the religion is at actually causing the good or bad to happen.

How, exactly, do you propose that the effectiveness of a religion in making people "good or better" be measured?

Why do you need to measure it exactly? "Good" is something we all recognize, but you can't put a numerical value on it. Mother Theresa was a very good person. Saying she was 154 good makes absolutely no sense.

If you know a person who didn't believe in anything in particular who then joins some religion and they become a better person than they were, what does that tell you? If they become worse, what does that tell you? Case in point, we have a family that we're good friends with. The mom has been studying and considering joining our Church. The dad is an unbeliever, but sees the positive changes in her. He gets after her when she skips church, etc.

If I asked him to measure and quantify how much better going to church makes her, what do you think his response would be?