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?

[agnosticatheist]

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

I think so.

Look at the simple FOJ (Follower of Jesus) message. Take up your cross and follow me. Die to self. Live to serve God and serve others.

I think one has to figure out the best way to go about doing the above before actually doing it; I'm still trying to get that figured out myself, which is one of the reasons I consider myself a "Skeptheist" (Skeptical of both theist and atheist claims) right now. Something just feels right about giving up everything *I* have ever wanted and living a life fully dedicated to God. But, the issue is figuring out exactly how to go about that.

I think if one's heart is geared towards dying to self, Christianity can be attractive.

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?

Yeah. I don't know if it is obviously true that it should be believed, but I think if one's circumstances bring them to the right place, I think one can come to the point of believing it.

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?

It offers personal, selfish hope, but it's pretty bleak when you look at the rest of humanity through the lens of Christianity. My personal hope is that there is only a Heaven where everyone, including Hitler, is redeemed, or that there is simply no afterlife. I don't want anyone to go to Hell. I would rather have no afterlife in Heaven if it meant no one would go to Hell. But that's just me. If there is a God, there is probably a reason why my personal hope is immature, invalid, selfish, short-sided, inconsequential, etc.

[Divine Insight]

Something just feels right about giving up everything *I* have ever wanted and living a life fully dedicated to God. But, the issue is figuring out exactly how to go about that.

I think if one's heart is geared towards dying to self, Christianity can be attractive.

The only thing I would point out here is that this philosophy is not unique to Christianity. On the contrary this is overwhelmingly a Buddhist philosophy of life actually.

Also, like you say, figuring out how to be "Dedicated to God" is the hard part. If there is no actual God speaking to you from a burning bush or a cloud, then you need to GUESS what you think God would like for you to do. And that ultimately ends up placing the responsibility right back on you again to decide for yourself exactly what you THINK God might want you do to.

Also, I argue, not only in Christianity, but even in Buddhism, that you can't truly ignore the *I*. You can't ignore pursuing things that will make you powerful and wealthy (perhaps not in terms of money, but at least wealthy in terms of being able to help others). After all, you need to take care of yourself before you can be of any use for others.

So you can't truly ignore the *I*. But you can ignore "selfish egotistical desires" which may not even be beneficial to the *I*. In fact, this is the first thing that the Buddhists try to point out, the *I* is not the ego. There for the *I* is not the enemy. You need to realize the difference between the spiritual *I*, and the ego first.

Then focusing on the *I* is no longer detrimental to anyone. On the contrary, it's beneficial to everyone and not selfish at all.

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?

Yeah. I don't know if it is obviously true that it should be believed, but I think if one's circumstances bring them to the right place, I think one can come to the point of believing it.

I personally can't imagine being in such circumstances. Moreover, it seems to me that the only circumstance that could exist that would actually serve that purpose would be for me to be at an all-time low precisely because I was knowingly and willfully doing obviously immoral things. Since I've never been in that position and don't foresee a reason why I would ever be in that position the religion does not make sense to me.

But yes, I can imagine other people being in that position. In fact, many people who claim to have been 'saved' confess to having been in extremely desperately immoral situations where they weren't doing anything good at all.

But if that's what it takes to believe in this religion it seems to me that it would only be convincing to a very few people. Most people probably don't find themselves in that position.

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?

It offers personal, selfish hope, but it's pretty bleak when you look at the rest of humanity through the lens of Christianity. My personal hope is that there is only a Heaven where everyone, including Hitler, is redeemed, or that there is simply no afterlife. I don't want anyone to go to Hell. I would rather have no afterlife in Heaven if it meant no one would go to Hell. But that's just me. If there is a God, there is probably a reason why my personal hope is immature, invalid, selfish, short-sided, inconsequential, etc.

I don't think it's selfish to wish that everyone could ultimately achieve heaven.

Actually there are religions that believe this is precisely what happens. Everyone reaches heaven (or nirvana) in the end without exception. Eastern mystical religions imagine this to be achieved through reincarnation.
'
If you think about it, if reincarnation is included with the possibility of salvation, then there is no reason why every single soul cannot be "saved" in the end.

After all, even within Christianity a person who has done horrible things throughout their life on Earth can supposedly be "saved" on their death bed.

If that's true, and reincarnation is tossed into the picture, then "salvation" can always occur at any point in a potentially endless future of reincarnations.

This is, in fact, the beliefs of some mystical religions. So if you like the idea of religions where everyone goes to heaven (or returns to God), then those religions already exist.

But like you say, in Christianity the condemnation of souls is a certainty. It's in the scriptures, and even Jesus himself has been attributed to saying that certain people will indeed go the way of everlasting punishment.

He also says that only "few" will make it into the kingdom of God, so that actually suggests that most people will end up being condemned.

And I agree with you, that's not a very attractive thought. Even if a person thinks they might be 'saved', the thought that most other people end up being condemned is not exactly attractive either.

[Elijah John]

Yes, though it is not taught explicitly in any of the Trinitarian churches, Christianity at it's core, in it's essence is a beautiful and true religion. ie, attractive.

The essentials being what Jesus taught:

Love of God and Neighbor. Beautiful in it's simplicity, that is what Jesus summarized as "the Law and the Prophets".

And the "Law and the Prophets" is the expression of the will of God.

That is the standard, and if one focuses on the Golden Rule and forgiveness, one does not of necessity have to buy into all the ugliness that seems ingrained in conventional Christianity.

-Ugliness which portrays the Father in need of blood appeasement, and slanders Him, imo.
-Or the irrationality of worshiping the prophet and Rabbi Jesus, a man, as a god.
-Or atrocious doctrine of the eternal torture of hell, and believing this to be somehow "just".

All the ugliness does not HAVE to be associated with God as portrayed by Jesus, and the essentials of the Faith as expressed in his teachings.

And this attractive form of Christianity in no way suggests that God does not care about issues of right and wrong, or ultimate justice.

But infinite torture for finite beings commiting finite "sins" does not seem just, imo. The "Good News" then changes, from salvation from the infinite torture a hell that was never warranted in the first place, to hope of eternal life, happy future with God and loved ones. No need to buy off and pay "protection" to any Supernatural Mafioso.

With all the theological accretions of Paul and others, one can easily lose sight of the true, beautiful and SIMPLE teachings of Jesus.. love of God and Neighbor.

Or to adapt the Muslim credo, "YHVH is God, and Jesus is His Messenger"

[higgy1911]

I think even the teachings of Jesus are largely unattractive to some. Or at the very least a mixed bag. Sure I like the Golden Rule, but all this emphasis on faith and forgiveness is anathema to me. Some of it I find downright immoral(in the sense that it conflicts with my moral code not that it is evil or anything). In general I think turning the other cheek is a terrible idea and I think over emphasis on forgiveness leads to bad behavior and not enough appropriate guilt(Catholics have e leg up here).

I think there is also too much emphasis on a father God and how to align oneself with his will for this religion to be attractive to me. Even if I believed in God I wouldn't be overly concerned with living my life the way He thinks I should if he won't put forth a little effort as well and meet me at least a little bit on my terms. Like verifying his existence for one.

I also don't think the dying to self concept is particularly moral nor expressed biblically to be synonymous with self control. My impression is it has a lot more to do with submission to something greater than yourself. However where there is truly free will no one speaks of submission.

So on the whole I don't see how this religion can be attractive outside of a few sound bites. Golden rule is okay. Love god and your neighbor as yourself? Nope , sorry I don't love people I have never met, and especially not as myself or with all my heart like I do the people who actually share my life.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, though it is not taught explicitly in any of the Trinitarian churches, Christianity at it's core, in it's essence is a beautiful and true religion. ie, attractive.

The essentials being what Jesus taught:

The only problem I have with your views Elijah John, is that they don't truly reflect orthodox Christianity. You actually reject much of the New Testament yourself. You reject the divinity of Jesus. You reject the Gospel claim that he was born of a virgin, or that he is the only begotten son of God. You reject that God spoke from a cloud verifying that Jesus was his Son. As far as I am aware you reject the very resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel claims that he ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

So while I agree that your bastardization of orthodox Christianity could potentially be beautiful, and possibly attractive to some people, it hardly supports the Gospels themselves. You seem to be rejecting far more than you are accepting in this religious paradigm.

So I'm not convinced that your homemade version of "Christianity" has any merit with respect to the actual religion and its doctrines.

In short, I personally do not accept your "Christian Deism" to be a valid representation of "Christianity". You need to reject far too many claims of the Christian Gospels, and I don't understand why you think you should be able to do this and continue to call what you have left "Christianity".

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.

I can make Jesus into a nice guy too by rejecting a lot of the Gospels. But I don't see how that can be called "Christianity".

[OnceConvinced]

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.
I see a God who created a being that went on to become the worst monster ever.
I see a God who created a place to torture all those who do not believe and worship him.
I see a blood thirsty God who requires the slaughter of an innocent being/beast before he will forgive and cleanse sin.
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.
I see a God who has so far failed to deal with the problem of sin.

When it comes to Christians:

I see people glorifying the horrible torturous death of an innocent being on a cross.
I see people rejoicing because an innocent man is paying the price for their atrocities
I see people indulging in cannibalistic rituals like communion.

The only way of looking at it is school of thought number 1. It doesn’t need to be attractive. It’s not meant to be attractive. If it’s real, then you just have to accept it. And then do your darndest to try to convince yourself and others it IS beautiful

[FarWanderer]

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

I'm inclined to say yes. Just get rid of Hell. Or at least don't make it permanent. Make punishment for redemptive purpose only. Hitler doesn't get into heaven until he's learned his lesson, but someday he'll make it there.

There's probably a lot more to say, but for me Hell is about 90% of what's unattractive about Christianity right there.

[Divine Insight]

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

I'm inclined to say yes. Just get rid of Hell. Or at least don't make it permanent. Make punishment for redemptive purpose only. Hitler doesn't get into heaven until he's learned his lesson, but someday he'll make it there.

There's probably a lot more to say, but for me Hell is about 90% of what's unattractive about Christianity right there.

You'd need to take that up with the Superstar Demigod of Christianity himself.

Matthew supposedly quoting Jesus:
Matt.25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Everlasting punishment doesn't sound like there's much room for parole.

But who knows? Maybe the term "everlasting" doesn't mean the same thing to Jesus as it means to us.

In the meantime to preach against everlasting punishment would be blaspheme against words attributed to Jesus insofar as I can see.

So I guess the question should be: Can we make an attractive Christianity without rejecting words attributed to Jesus?

[AlanFromMI]

This is going to be a long-winded opening post. However, the question for debate is
Question for Debate: Can there be such a thing as a genuinely attractive Christianity?

I don't think so. At the very base of any Christian religion are the following:

1. The Bible is the word of or inspired and the right tool for following God, but has clearly shown that it's flawed and too easily used as tool for atrocities, scamming people, and so forth.

2. You worship both a man and a book just as much if not more than God even though the same book says that you're not to have idols, worship anyone else, and so forth.

3. Christianity is clearly a religion that was born from a mixture of culture & superstitions from a human civilization over 2000 years ago with a severe lack of understanding of germs, Earth processes, science, sanitation, food health and medicine.

4. The importance of faith when faith is the tool of scam artists.