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?

[OnceConvinced]

I would say let the punishment fit the crime. I would judge the severity of the crimes and issue a punishment accordingly, which may or may not involve the death penalty. In fact I'd be more likely just to have them remain dead if they're that bad. I don't think I would feel the need to rip them out of their graves, judge them and put them through further punishment.

Everybody should pay for their OWN crimes. They take responsibility for their OWN actions. Nobody takes their punishment for them, even voluntarily, let alone an innocent person. One thing I would not be demanding is a human sacrifice, not even an animal sacrifice, because that would show me to be a very barbaric primitive God. I would want to stand apart from the other primitive barbaric Gods. Oh and there would be no eternal suffering, as that too would be ugly and barbaric. If the sentence is death, it's death and the person remains dead.

Good response, but your "punishment fitting the crime" only works well in the physical world where death exists.

If I were God, I would have designed things in a way where punishment fitting the crime actually DOES work in the spiritual world.

Now I am making the same protest that DI did earlier. You are wanting to limit me as God with YOUR rules, but because Im God I make my own rules and I determine how things work. I as God can determine that in the spiritual world, it is possible to die.

But ok, even if we dont have a death sentence, we can still determine an appropriate punishment based on the sins/crimes committed. I see no problem there. Maybe someone like Hitler I would simply banish to a confined place somewhere where he cant do anything. Or somehow put that spirit into some kind of sleep or something like that. Im not restricted by your rules Myth. I am God, remember?

At what point in your design is the reward of everlasting life granted? After gaining everlasting life, death is not an option.

As already stated, I dont see why death cannot be an option, but if not then why not everlasting sleep of some kind? Whose to say that a spirit being cant be put into some kind of stasis.

Just like Divine Insight, I too have a good imagination and I could easily come up with a beautiful religion. It wouldn't be that difficult.

But would your beautiful religion accomplish what Christianity is designed to accomplish?

You would have to define what Christianity is trying to accomplish for his game.

God is creating angels to replace those that rebelled against Him and abandoned their first estate, the earth.

He would not directly create immortal spiritual angels again, and risk being stuck with more everlasting rebels. He would create man a little lower than the angels and have them earn immortality through their obedience. After all, the angels on earth did not work out because they sinned against God. Therefore, in His plan to create replacement caretakers, He would rule out the character flaw which caused the original caretakers to fail. That flaw was sin! Any humans who sinned would not be allowed to eat from the tree of life and live forever. If they sinned they would die the second death and that would forever be the end of them. This was the design philosophy of the Old Testament covenant.

What your God would do may not be what I would do if I were God. I would never have set the system up this way in the first place. I would have designed it better and put in contingencies to prevent the mess from occurring.

Frankly I dont really see what your point is with the above stuff. If someone is worthy of eternal death, then why should they be saved from eternal death?

The worst penalty for any man is death. But everlasting beings cannot die.

Who says that a spiritual being is everlasting? Has this been proven as fact?

If I am a God who is all powerful, why cant I put a spiritual being to death?

Thus, penalties are infinitely worse in the spiritual world. The devil, for example, will be imprisoned and tormented eternally in the lake of fire.

If I am God, Id have a way to execute a spiritual being without having to create a place of eternal torment for them. Remember, Im a loving God, not a sadistic one.

God does not desire to have any other being face these type of penalties. Thus man was created mortal, with the ability to gain everlasting life if he or she so desired. Or simply die.

As a parent, I had penalties for my children. I determined what those penalties would be. If I felt those penalties were too harsh, I would determine lesser penalties for them. I would never find myself in the situation where the penalties were so harsh that I had to find away around dishing them out. I would certainly not require any human sacrifice to enable me to forgive my child.

It is designed this way because God is Love!

A God of love does not require human sacrifices. He would not require an innocent being to suffer the penalty for a crime before he was able to forgive.

He does not want to see another being face the fate of the devil.

I would never have created the Devil to begin with. Being all knowing Id know what the devil would become before I created it and adjust my design accordingly.

It is better to die as a human than face possible everlasting torment.

As a loving God I would never sentence anyone to everlasting torment. That would be sadistic not to mention very very ugly.

[myth-one.com]

You are wanting to limit me as God with YOUR rules, but because Im God I make my own rules and I determine how things work. I as God can determine that in the spiritual world, it is possible to die.

Yes, Father.

Afterall, You Yourself are a Spirit:

God is a Spirit:

So it is possible for you to die also.

And when you die, there will other spiritual beings eager to take your place. Many may be plotting against you now! It's happened before with Satan's rebellion.

Under your design, You, as a God who can die, are no more powerful than a president or dictator.

The worst penalty for any man is death. But everlasting beings cannot die.

Who says that a spiritual being is everlasting? Has this been proven as fact?

Mankind was expelled from the Garden of Eden to separate them from the Tree of Life so that they could not eat its fruit and live forever like God and the angels:

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Speaking of believers who shall inherit the spiritual Kingdom of God in the world to come, Jesus states:

Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels... (Luke 20:36)

If they cannot die, they are immortal -- or everlasting.

[myth-one.com]

The only way one could become an heir to eternal life under the first covenant was to never sin. However, there was a fault in the first testament in that all mankind sinned! Therefore, no one had gained eternal life under that first testament. Since the first covenant contained faults, God created a second or New Testament:

So you are asking us to believe that God is not omniscient and had no clue that his first plan would totally fail?

You are basically asking us to believe in a God who has no clue what he's doing and is proceeding on a basis of trial and error experimentation.

I don't think that's going to fly. It's certainly not convincing to me.

God claimed that the first testament contained a "fault."

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:7)

The fault was with man, not God.

Suppose some human could live a sinless life. He would not be under the death sentence. He could then give his life freely as a sacrifice for the others to free them from the death sentence imposed by the first covenant.

Also, even if we accept this penal substitution, then shouldn't that sinless human actually die, permanently forever if he is going to give his life to save the others?

He did, we've discussed this previously I believe.

Man would then no longer be liable under that first covenant. Our liability would be eliminated when the penalty was paid.

Why. How could the penalty for all men be paid by one sinless person?

Here's how:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

[Divine Insight]

God claimed that the first testament contained a "fault."

And who designed that "testament"?

Supposedly God did.

So the fault is with God.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:7)

The fault was with man, not God.

A clearly flawed mythology. To begin with a "covenant" is a mutual agreement or arrangement. The Bible does not even describe any mutual arrangement that was made between God and Adam and Eve.

The whole fable is utter flawed. In fact, this simple observation alone should be sufficient to prove to you that the Bible has nothing to do with any "perfect" or "all-wise" creator.

It is all the proof we need to know that the Bible is false. It's made up of lies. Lies that you continually copy and paste as though they should be believed.

Also, even if we accept this penal substitution, then shouldn't that sinless human actually die, permanently forever if he is going to give his life to save the others?

He did, we've discussed this previously I believe.

Yes we did discuss this previously I totally reject your absurd apologetic claim that Jesus actually died.

That's simply not the Christian fairytale. Period. You are making up your own nonsense. Totally ungrounded meaningless nonsense created by you (not by the scriptures).

In the Biblical fables Jesus didn't die. He was resurrected and ascended to Heaven to sit at the right-hand of God.

So your apologetic nonsense fails miserably.

Man would then no longer be liable under that first covenant. Our liability would be eliminated when the penalty was paid.

Why. How could the penalty for all men be paid by one sinless person?

Here's how:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This is nothing more than religious nonsense.

All you've done here is copy and paste Paul apologetic arguments. But those arguments don't hold water either. Of course he's going to argue that one sinless man can pay for the sins of many because that's the religious propaganda that he's trying to sell.

There is no question that if Jesus is going to be viewed as the sacrificial lamb of God sent to pay for the sins of mankind then arguments are going to need to be made that this supposedly makes sense. But it doesn't make any sense at all.

Paul was wrong on many things. He even claimed that there is no excuse for people to not believe in God because they can clearly see that all the living things around them are "made". But that turned out to be totally false as well. They weren't "made" they evolved through a very natural process of evolution that we now understand.

Sp clearly Paul had no clue what he was talking about. Yet here you are copying and pasting apologetic arguments that had been made by Paul when it's crystal clear that this man had no clue what he what he was talking about.

Paul has no credibility. He thought that everything he saw around him was "made" by a God as the finished product just as he saw it to be. That was wrong.

Paul was wrong. Paul had no clue what he's talking about.

[OnceConvinced]

You are wanting to limit me as God with YOUR rules, but because Im God I make my own rules and I determine how things work. I as God can determine that in the spiritual world, it is possible to die.

Yes, Father.

Afterall, You Yourself are a Spirit:

God is a Spirit:

So it is possible for you to die also.

And when you die, there will other spiritual beings eager to take your place. Many may be plotting against you now! It's happened before with Satan's rebellion.

Under your design, You, as a God who can die, are no more powerful than a president or dictator.

Even if I can be killed that changes nothing. Its really quite irrelevant.

Perhaps though, I am the one being that cannot be killed? I am the one infinite being who created everything (which the bible teaches anyway). Does that mean I can create other beings like me who are also infinite? I doubt it. I can only create lesser beings. So I make these beings finite, while I remain infinite. I see no problem there.

The worst penalty for any man is death. But everlasting beings cannot die.

Who says that a spiritual being is everlasting? Has this been proven as fact?

Mankind was expelled from the Garden of Eden to separate them from the Tree of Life so that they could not eat its fruit and live forever like God and the angels:

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Speaking of believers who shall inherit the spiritual Kingdom of God in the world to come, Jesus states:

Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels... (Luke 20:36)
If they cannot die, they are immortal -- or everlasting

How is any of this proof that spiritual beings are everlasting? You are taking bible fables and trying to make them the rule. I dont have to follow the rules of ancient bronze aged tribesman from thousands of years ago. I make the rules.

I am the infinite God. I decide what the rules are. Thus everything I make is finite. I can wipe out anything that tries to mess with my beloved creation. In fact I would create nothing that could mess with my creation. I would do a proper analysis and design.

Now get down on your knees and worship me, Myth.... actually don't. I don't require your worship or your allegiance.