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?

[Thunder9010]

I think my chosen faith adequately answers all of those things. As with any religion, there are reasons one might doubt -- presuming that your goal is to look for reason to disbelieve of course.

You are assuming a lot when you presume that my goal is to look for reasons to disbelieve. I would have love to believe in a truly great God. That would be fantastic.

Just to be clear, I never meant to imply that it was your goal to disbelieve.

What I said is speaking very broadly. There are flaws within every religion or non-religion. If any given person is looking for reasons to disbelieve, they will latch onto those imperfections and talk themselves out of believing.

I am curious, what religions do you know of that have better answers for the purpose of life, the existence of human suffering, etc?

[Divine Insight]

I am curious, what religions do you know of that have better answers for the purpose of life, the existence of human suffering, etc?

Various Eastern Mystical philosophies. I hate to point to any specific name because once a philosophy becomes an orthodox organized religion it often picks up a lot of superstitious dogma that wasn't necessarily part of the foundational philosophy.

But just to throw some names around Taoism is probably the most promising mystical philosophy of all. There are many forms of Buddhism that come in very close in second place.

The purpose of life is to enjoy the experience. Now you may misunderstand the term "enjoy" here because the purpose of life is not for the ego to enjoy life. The purpose is for your spirit to enjoy the experience.

Now you may ask, "How in the world can there be suffering then?" But suffering is mostly subjective. All emotional suffering is self-inflicted to be sure. And this is explained very well in these philosophies. If you are emotionally upset about something it's because you have chosen to be emotional upset about it. In fact some people may very well "torture" themselves with extreme emotional suffering.

As an example, there have been cases where a parent lost a child to a horrible death. They then spent the entire rest of their lives in anguish over the death of the child, never allowing themselves to not be tortured by the event.

Did this do any good for the dead child? Hardly. Moreover, in the larger scheme of things the child wasn't even there's the child was a child of God. Also, if they truly believe in a spiritual reality the child never truly died because there is no such thing as death in these Eastern Mystical philosophies. So emotionally torturing ourselves over the death of another individual is actually silly if we truly believe in a spiritual reality.

So emotional pain and suffering is entirely self-inflicted. Yet most of us actually prefer to have this experience when someone close to us dies. Some of us may actually "wallow" in this type of suffering. And in some cases it's hard to even know if it's truly even a form of suffering or if a person is actually enjoying it in some way.

The other kind of pain and suffering (physical pain) is obviously much more difficult to deal with. I think the best way to deal with physical pain is to think of it as the "risk factor" that makes the extreme joy of achievement possible. After all if there were no risks everything would be extremely boring.

Another explanation is given that we simply need "opposites" if we want to experience good feelings. We can't know good feelings if we don't have bad feelings to compare them with. So in order for life to offer good sensations there must be bad sensations as well.

So the idea is like this. The "creator" created a world with a limited amount of potential pain. The more pain allowed, the greater the good sensations can be. So a line had to be drawn at some point. Actually there is a line drawn. Humans will go into a state of shock if they experience too much pain. And then they become numb to it. We may not desire to be in that situation, but it's a situation that is required if life is to have any meaning. Without pain, there can be no pleasure.

Finally, the only person that you can know the level of suffering that they are experiencing is you. You have no clue how much suffering or pain someone else might be experiencing. You can only guess what you think it might feel like to be in their shoes. But in truth, they may not be having the same experience that you imagine.

So when it comes to suffering you can't really say, "Look at all the suffering in the world". All you can do is ask whether you are suffering more than you can deal with? If the answer is no, you're not in a state of suffering more than you can deal with, then that's the answer. You can't answer for other people.

And finally, these philosophies pretty much all accept the concept of reincarnation. And the concept of karma. Karma is like a feedback system that only allows you to have experiences that you were willing to dish out in previous lives. So karma takes care of all that. And even though karma is not thought of as a system of justice or judgment, it can be thought of in that way if you really want to look at it that way. Everyone gets what they dish out. What could be more just than this?

So it covers, meaning, suffering, and justice.

By the way no souls are "lost" in these types of philosophies. Everyone, without exception "returns" to the creator. It is even said that we are a direct manifestation of the creator and can never be separated from the creator because we are a part of the creator.

But look at Christianity. Christianity has a God who creates countless individual souls that are totally separate from him and he "loses" the vast majority of these souls, either to death or eternal damnation.

In Christianity souls can "die". Therefore in Christianity if someone you love dies, maybe you're justified in feeling great pain in this. In fact, many people believe that far worse fates can await souls after the body dies.

In the Eastern mystical religions all souls return to God. Nary a single solitary soul is ever lost. In fact, there can't even be such a thing as a "solitary soul" in these religions. We are all a manifestation of God.

Our "purpose" is to provide God with a way of experiencing physical incarnation through us. Everything you experience is experienced by God. Including all your suffering. You are never asked to experience anything that God is unwilling to experience. You cannot be separated from God because ultimately you are a facet of the mind of God just like the facets of a diamond are an inseparable part of the stone.

That's the idea.

I'm not saying that this is reality. But I will argue that this is a far more attractive picture of reality than Christianity has to offer.

In Christianity souls can somehow exist without God. They can be separated from God, or "die". They also might even potentially be burned forever in a lake of fire. And according to the Bible most souls are "lost".

During the Great Flood in the OT the bulk of humanity was lost.

In the NT Jesus himself preached that the path is straight and the gate is narrow that leads to eternal life and few will make it. Well, if only few make it then the vast majority must be lost.

So Christianity is a religion that proclaim that most human souls will be lost. Why should that be attractive to anyone? Unless they are so arrogant that they think they will be one of the FEW who are 'saved'.

In fact, think about. In Christianity you need to be "saved" from an undesirable fate.

There is no such thing as being "saved" in these Eastern Mystical religions. Instead they speak about becoming "awakened" or "enlightened". But you won't be 'lost' if you don't achieve this right away. Eventually you will achieve it. Everyone does without exception. There is no Satan in Eastern Mysticism. There are no eternally damned souls in Eastern Mysticism.

All that exists are us poor little suffering humans on a path to enlightenment.

But when we finally reach enlightenment we will know the mind of God.

That's the idea. I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying that it's got to be more attractive than Christianity where a person needs to be "saved" or "damned".

[myth-one.com]

=================================================================

God proclaims that the wages of sin is death.

And all mankind from Adam and Eve have sinned.

=================================================================

Now, let's allow you to be God -- (just for a few minutes so you can save all mankind.)

Oh wise and only God OnceConvinced, how can these sinners be saved from the wages of their sin -- everlasting death?

Speak, (or type) to us, Father.

(OK, you're on . . .)

Anyways, how would you set it up to save mankind?

This is a totally unfair game.

If you're going to allow me to be God then you must do so without restraints.

You have already demanded: "God proclaims that the wages of sin is death."

If I was a God I would have never been that stupid to make a proclamation like that in the first place.

In your game you are forcing the stupidity of the biblical God onto the person you are asking to "play God", and then asking them how they would get themselves out of this absurd predicament.

But the solution should be obvious to you -- being smarter than God!

The wages of sin is death, and all mankind sins.

Design a way to save mankind.

Mankind awaits your solution -- help us please.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to post 61 by Thunder9010]

Care to answer my objection that any religion that prescribes a purpose for life or suffering is tyrannical and not at all beautiful?

Purpose is great and all, but if you believe your life is not the property of another then there is no beauty in another determining your purpose.

If you believe in self ownership then any belief in Devine purpose is unattractive. As would be any purpose prescribed by another person. To have any meaning that is not not sinister or slave/master oriented life can only have what purpose the person living it determines.

[Divine Insight]

But the solution should be obvious to you -- being smarter than God!

The wages of sin is death, and all mankind sins.

Design a way to save mankind.

Mankind awaits your solution -- help us please.

It would be impossible to save mankind given those conditions. Killing an innocent demigod would not solve the problem. Especially considering that he doesn't actually die but instead he is awarded eternal life himself.

The real irony is that even the Biblical fables fail to solve this problem.

You shouldn't need to be "smarter than a God" to see that these superstitious fables fail. Jesus didn't even die spiritually. His body merely quit running for three days supposedly. And according to the bible he was merely asleep during that time.

So Jesus couldn't have paid the wages of sin for anyone anyway. The fable fails.

Jesus obtained the reward of saints, he didn't pay the wages of sin for anyone.

And even if he had the only way you could get in on that is to agree to the penal substitution. Do you agree to have Jesus crucified to save your soul?

Even if that's the deal, I would necessarily have to reject it anyway. Why should I agree to have someone else pay for my sins?

And besides if the wages of sin is to merely die for three days and then be risen I'll gladly pay for my own sins. Do I also get to be the ruler of heaven afterward too? :-K

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Makes me want to go out and sin like crazy, I wouldn't want to pass up a deal like that.

[Thunder9010]

[Replying to post 62 by Divine Insight]
Good points. Still, not all of Christianity believes in eternal torment. I know I don't. I believe that when all is said and done, everyone will acknowledge that they were treated 100% fairly. That would be impossible if anyone were to be punished for an infinite amount of time for a finite amount of sin. God is 100% fair and eternal torment just isn't fair.

I'll respond in more detail later.

[Divine Insight]

God is 100% fair and eternal torment just isn't fair.

Obviously I would have no problem with a God who is 100% fair.

Clearly my perceptions and understanding of Christianity and the Bible after years of studying it and discussing it is quite negative. This negativity most certainly does not emanate from me (even though many people may think it appears to be this way). But on the contrary, I have bent over backwards so far to try to make the Bible work that I literally had my head up my posterior in an effort to try to justify and defend this religion. People who read my posts today, have no clue what extremes I have gone through to try to make Christianity work.

But in the end I had no choice but to confess to the truth. The Bible cannot be made to work verbatim per what the scriptures actually have to say. And IMHO any attempt to try to make it work by cherry picking and ignoring the obvious contradictions and absurdities that it contains is truly futile. It's a game of pretense. In fact, once that is truly recognized it's easy to see that this same game of pretense could be used to resurrect Zeus or basically any God myth of your choice. All you need to do is ignore the absurdities, and pretend that it can be made to be saying things that it's not really saying.

In any case, getting back to the idea of a God who is 100% fair, I don't see the God of the Bible being 100% at all. Especially in terms of treating all of humanity 100% fairly. The Hebrew mythology is Hebrew-centric for one thing. They have proclaimed that they are God's "Chosen People" if that fair to all the other humans God had created?

So I don't see where the Hebrew mythology is even remotely describing a God who is 100% fair.

So now let's imagine that there really is a God and this God really is 100% fair.

Do you think that this fair God is going to be upset with me for rejecting a religion and collection of scriptures that appears to me to be describing a totally unfair God?

On the contrary, if there exists a God who truly is fair, then this God should be absolutely pleased with me for rejecting what I see as a totally unfair description of God.

So if there exists a God who truly is 100% fair then I have no problem with THAT God, (and that God would certainly have no problem with me), but I don't see how Hebrew mythology can be describing that God. The God described in the Christian Bible is anything but fair. Even without eternal damnation.

It would be totally unfair for this God to have his only begotten son brutally beaten and crucified on my behalf without having asked my permission first.

And then to demand that I accept this on my behalf lest I be "damned", is extremely unfair.

And also why use terms like 'damned', if the option is simply death? Why make out like death is some sort of "punishment'? Punishment implies that someone has done something wrong and therefore deserves to be punished.

But hey, think about this.

God is asking me to condone having his innocent son beaten and crucified to pay for my so-called sins. I refuse to condone that on grounds of morality. For me, to accept that on my behalf would be the greatest act of immorality I have ever committed.

So I would chose death rather than commit the highly immoral act of condoning having Jesus crucified on my behalf. Therefore when this God puts me to death it would be totally "unfair" to call that a punishment. On the contrary, my death would have been an act of martyrdom.

Martyrdom? You may ask. Well, sure. If every human would reject this immoral act of having God's son pay for their sins, then there would have been no reason for God to have even done this terrible thing. No one would have accepted it anyway.

Would all of humanity then die? I suppose so. But so what?

As far as I'm concerned that would just be a lesson that this Biblical God needs to learn anyway. If he's going to create souls he shouldn't do it in such a way that not a single one of them can survive his judgement on them. And expecting them to be even further immoral that they would actually condone having his innocent son butchered on their behalf is to expect them to ultimately condone an immoral act just to save their own butts anyway.

Why any God would want to create such disgustingly immoral pets is beyond me.

Surely an omnipotent omniscient God who can do anything could do better than this?

If humanity is as great of a failure as Christianity demands, then the creator of humanity is most certainly an equally failed creator.

You can't have a fable of a God who creates a creation where every single person within that creation is an absolute immoral person who can only be 'saved' by even condoning a more immoral act to pay for their immorality, and then turn around and suggest that this creator is someone great.

I mean, I make no apologies for my critique of Hebrew mythology, but IMHO this is the sickest God myth I have ever read. I just can't even imagine that any intelligent being had anything to do with these stories. This mythology was written by a barbaric and immoral brutal society and it SHOWS.

I just don't see how anyone can believe that this mythology represents an all-wise all-moral God.

So if you believe that there exists a God, and that God is 100% fair, then surely you can see why God should actually be very pleased that I totally reject Hebrew mythology. Because that mythology makes God out to be anything but fair, and not even remotely wise.

So yes, I have absolutely no problem with any God that might exist that is 100% fair. That's a God I could actually praise. But I don't see that in the biblical God myths. So it's the Bible I reject. Not any potentially 100% fair God.

Show me a religion that has a 100% fair God and I'll consider it.

[myth-one.com]

But the solution should be obvious to you -- being smarter than God!

The wages of sin is death, and all mankind sins.

Design a way to save mankind.

Mankind awaits your solution -- help us please.

It would be impossible to save mankind given those conditions.

No, it was possible under one scenario.

The wages of sin must be paid. However, if someone else paid the wages for your sins, you would not have to pay them.

This is exactly what Jesus did for those that believe in Him as their Savior.

[Divine Insight]

But the solution should be obvious to you -- being smarter than God!

The wages of sin is death, and all mankind sins.

Design a way to save mankind.

Mankind awaits your solution -- help us please.

It would be impossible to save mankind given those conditions.

No, it was possible under one scenario.

The wages of sin must be paid. However, if someone else paid the wages for your sins, you would not have to pay them.

This is exactly what Jesus did for those that believe in Him as their Savior.

You make is sound like it was a traffic ticket.

Do you think the courts would allow a murder to go free if you volunteered to take his sentence for him?

Executing you instead of the killer is hardly justice.

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

Killing an innocent man would not pay for the sin of sinners.

Moreover, Jesus didn't die remember?

Jesus was resurrected and received the gift of eternal life. Not only does he get to live forever, but he even gets to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all. That's hardly the wages of sin. So the Christian fairytale fails.

If death is the wages of sin and Jesus was said to pay the wages of sin for anyone then he would need to stay dead. Otherwise his check would have bounced.

The Christian fairytale makes no sense.

Moreover, it's not even enough that Jesus supposedly died to pay for your sins. But you are then being asked to CONDONE this act on your behalf, otherwise the Christians claim that you are rejecting the offer.

How many times do I need to tell you that in this scenario I would have no choice but to reject the offer. I cannot condone having an innocent man (or demigod) paying for my supposed sins.

Moreover, I totally disagree with the severity of the punishment. There is nothing I have ever done in my entire life what would warrant beating me to a pulp and nailing me to a pole to die. Therefore if Jesus paid for my sins, he's due a huge rebate.

This Christian religion not only make no sense at all, but it's actually an extreme insult to suggest to decent people that they should condone this kind of penal substitution on their behalf.

And finally, if the creator God created us in such a way that it's impossible for any of us to be free of sin, then that was his failure. Why should we be held responsible for having been created by a totally inept God. The Christian God would owe us all a huge apology for being such an inept creator in the first place.

Christianity not only makes no sense, but it is highly insulting to both humans and any God that might actually exist. To even suggest that a God is this inept and immoral is an insult to the very concept of God.

Christianity demands that God is an immoral inept idiot. And then ironically it frowns on anyone who doesn't agree with this.

I see no reason to believe that we were created by an immoral inept idiot.

Pure secular atheism makes more sense than that.

[myth-one.com]

But the solution should be obvious to you -- being smarter than God!

The wages of sin is death, and all mankind sins.

Design a way to save mankind.

Mankind awaits your solution -- help us please.

It would be impossible to save mankind given those conditions.

No, it was possible under one scenario.

The wages of sin must be paid. However, if someone else paid the wages for your sins, you would not have to pay them.

This is exactly what Jesus did for those that believe in Him as their Savior.

888888888888888888888888888

Killing an innocent man would not pay for the sin of sinners.

Moreover, Jesus didn't die remember?

Jesus was resurrected and received the gift of eternal life.

Jesus was the only human to ever qualify for everlasting life under the Old Testament covenant.

That is, He never sinned, thus He did not have to die.

Everlasting life is the reward of the saved. He could not accept His deserved reward and also give it freely to those that accept Him as His Savior.

The Bible speaks of two deaths -- the first and the second. All mankind are appointed to die the first death -- both believers, nonbelievers, and Jesus:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

Just as all humans die once, all will be resurrected. This includes believers, nonbelievers, and Jesus:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:22)

Jesus was the first to be resurrected:

But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (I Corinthians 15:23)

Jesus was resurrected as a human, not as an everlasting spirit:

But they were terrified and affrightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:37-39)

If He had been resurrected to everlasting life, then He would have accepted His reward for not sinning and could not be mankind's Savior.

He was "carried" up into Heaven about forty days later:

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. (Luke 24:51)

At this point He was still a human. However, He could not enter Heaven as flesh and blood:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;... (I Corinthians 15:50)

Jesus was resurrected as a man, not an everlasting spirit:

But they were terrified and affrightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:37-39)

Not only does he get to live forever, but he even gets to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all. That's hardly the wages of sin. So the Christian fairytale fails.

If death is the wages of sin and Jesus was said to pay the wages of sin for anyone then he would need to stay dead. Otherwise his check would have bounced.

The Christian fairytale makes no sense.

Moreover, it's not even enough that Jesus supposedly died to pay for your sins. But you are then being asked to CONDONE this act on your behalf, otherwise the Christians claim that you are rejecting the offer.

How many times do I need to tell you that in this scenario I would have no choice but to reject the offer. I cannot condone having an innocent man (or demigod) paying for my supposed sins.

Moreover, I totally disagree with the severity of the punishment. There is nothing I have ever done in my entire life what would warrant beating me to a pulp and nailing me to a pole to die. Therefore if Jesus paid for my sins, he's due a huge rebate.

This Christian religion not only make no sense at all, but it's actually an extreme insult to suggest to decent people that they should condone this kind of penal substitution on their behalf.

And finally, if the creator God created us in such a way that it's impossible for any of us to be free of sin, then that was his failure. Why should we be held responsible for having been created by a totally inept God. The Christian God would owe us all a huge apology for being such an inept creator in the first place.

Christianity not only makes no sense, but it is highly insulting to both humans and any God that might actually exist. To even suggest that a God is this inept and immoral is an insult to the very concept of God.

Christianity demands that God is an immoral inept idiot. And then ironically it frowns on anyone who doesn't agree with this.

I see no reason to believe that we were created by an immoral inept idiot.

Pure secular atheism makes more sense than that.