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?

[Divine Insight]

[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.

I don't personally believe that this is a "true measure" of the value of religion. For one thing, if the religion is false, then it's filling people with false hopes and beliefs anyway.

Also, how can we ever determine whether religion makes people good, or whether good people turn to religions simply because they are good people (or people who want to become better persons) and have they been led to believe that turning to religion is the "good thing" to do.

When I was a Christian I chose to become a pastor, not because I thought it would make me a better person, but simply because I thought that it would be the "right thing" to do. But I was the one that wanted to do the "right thing", becoming a pastor simply seemed at the time like the "right thing" to do.

Also, if we look at the history Christianity it doesn't have a very good track record of making people good. On the contrary, many violent and vile things have been inspired by this superstitious religion. Everyone is aware of the Crusades. And then there is the Witch Burnings. And in the early history of Christianity it was very violent and did horrific things to Pagan in the name of Jesus as the Christ.

I think also that the holocaust against the Jews by Nazi Germany was inspired by Christianity. Many people may argue that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian even though he clearly was Catholic. But if you stop and think about it, religious prejudice against the Jews was most likely the greatest motivation to justify exterminating them. And Christianity can indeed be used to support that genocide.

It's easy to use Christianity to support the genocide of the Jews.

Just use the following line of reasoning.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Anyone who rejects God and blasphemes against God is a heathen deserving of death.
3. The Old Testament commands the killing of heathens that blaspheme against God.
4. Jesus taught that "Not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass".

So there you have a line of reasoning from Christianity that allows for (and even demands by the commandment of God) that all Jews be killed for public blaspheme against Jesus who Christians believe is God.

Now you may argue with the above line of reasoning, but the truth is that technically the above argument can indeed be supported by Christian scriptures. So even though you may object to this line of reasoning, the Christian doctrine can be used to support it.

So even if the religion could be measured to influence some people to be good, it can just as easily be measured to have influenced many people to commit atrocities.

I like what Steven Weinberg says about this:

"There will always be good people and bad people, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things".

There's certainly a lot of truth to that. However, as a technicality I will grant that other non-religious ideologies can also be used to convince good people to do bad things. But it's certainly clear that religion is a very powerful tool for accomplishing this feat.

[Elijah John]

.

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

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

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

Ahhh, but Z's right, I AM a Christian, a Primitive, Deistic Christian. Christianity as it was MEANT to be
and very much in line with the teachings of that first century manual for Christian converts, the Didache. And similar to the Ebionites. I have a valid interpretation of Christianity centered mosly on the Synoptic Gospels the Hebrew Bible and the epistle of James, but I admit it is not the predominate interpretation and form of Christianity.

I think the majority interpretation is also valid in that it is also Scriptural. But the interpretation that I oppose, and the one that the majority embrace is centered mostly on the theological speculations and opinions of John and Paul.

But as Joey K would say,"don't it beat all", whole churches have been founded on John and Paul's opinions.

But I:

-worship YHVH, Jesus Father and God, OUR Heavenly Father..
-I pray Jesus prayer, the "Our Father"
-And I try to practice Jesus' Golden Rule.

Are these not the ESSENTIALS of Jesus teachings, therefore a valid Christianity?

So who is ANYONE to tell me I am not a Christian!?

[Divine Insight]

So who is ANYONE to tell me I am not a Christian!?

Obviously all the other "Christians".

You confess yourself that your view of Christianity is not the predominant orthodox view.

Christian demonstrations and sects have been pointing fingers at each other proclaiming that the others are "not true Christians". Divisive finger-pointing seems to be innate in these Abrahamic jealous-God religions.

By renouncing the Christianities that are based upon the Holy Scriptures of Paul and John you are basically pointing your fingers at them proclaiming that their views are wrong.

I have always stated that it should be obvious that if this highly divided religion that we collectively call "Christianity" were to ever become the single religion on earth, that would only be the beginning of the real "Holy Wars". With all other religions out of the way, this would leave the Christians to point fingers at each other and have their own internal Holy Wars (which they are actually currently having anyway).

After all, I can play this game too. In fact, I'm more than willing to play it. I have actually joined the user group "Disciple of Jesus". This is because I view Jesus as someone who actually followed the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and rejected the Old Testament laws, even though Matthew has Jesus proclaiming that he didn't come to change the law. I think the actions and teachings of Jesus prove that Matthew was wrong.

Therefore just as you toss out Paul and John, I also toss out Matthew.

In fact, I don't trust any of the Gospel rumors to be absolute truth.

So if I wanted to I could also claim that I am a "Christian" as Christianity was "meant to be".

And we could have are own little Holy War over that one.

I don't see the point to it though. Why do we need to use Jesus as fodder for division? It makes no sense to me.

This is why I just drop the whole "Christian" thing since that's where the fodder for division really arises. It's better to reject Christianity and be like Jesus than to use Christianity as fodder for Holy Wars and be unlike Jesus as Mahatma Gandhi points out.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

DI stated:

"By renouncing the Christianities that are based upon the Holy Scriptures of Paul and John you are basically pointing your fingers at them proclaiming that their views are wrong."
-------
I did not SAY that, so please, get it straight. I said they have one VALID interpretation of Scripture, with John and Paul as their emphasis, but not the ONLY valid interpretation. There is also a more primitive, valid interpretation based on the Synoptics, James, and the Hebrew Bible, which I happen to believe more accurately reflect Jesus teachings.

So please, do not mischaracterize my position.

[bluethread]

But I:

-worship YHVH, Jesus Father and God, OUR Heavenly Father..
-I pray Jesus prayer, the "Our Father"
-And I try to practice Jesus' Golden Rule.

Are these not the ESSENTIALS of Jesus teachings, therefore a valid Christianity?

So who is ANYONE to tell me I am not a Christian!?

I should have said appear, as I did when referring to your views. When I use that term, I think of RCC doctrine, since even the Protestants tend to follow it. The orthodox(eastern) are less so, but I do not run into many of them.

Regarding your "ESSENTIALS", they predate Christianity.

It was Moshe' who first received that reference to the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov. I am not very familiar with the Didache, so does it actually used that term?

The "Our Father" is a restatement of four principles from the Tanakh.
- The Shema
- The Davidic Covenant
- What you refer to as the "Golden Rule"
- Encouragement to avoid the ways of the nations.

The "Golden Rule" was Hillel's response to being challenged to summarize the entire Torah while standing on one foot. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Yeshua merely puts a positive spin on it when He says, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." If you will notice, in both of these there is a justification for the "Golden Rule" and that is HaTorah, So, at least for Yeshua, this is a reference to living a Torah submissive life.

So, you see, if these are the "Essentials" of your belief, it is no different from Adonai's ways for Israel.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 27 by Divine Insight]

Hmm, you seem to have me down as a Christian despite me explicitly stating at the beginning of my second post that I'm not. Not to mention several times mentioning that my beliefs were different from the one's being discussed.

As I said in my earlier post if its about your personal understanding of the arguments at hand, then that's down to you. There's no debate needed.

You do seem to be convinced though that others should think the way you do, if only they knew what you know. History is full of people who thought the same and were proved wrong.

Specifically I think the following points don't stand up as absolute truths.

1) That the two arguments you make are the only ones.

2) That all people will perceive them in the same way that you do.

3) That there are no christians. (The idea that all Christians don't really want to be Christians and/or were forced to become Christians in the first place is outlandish and without evidence)

And I don't think any of them have been addressed.

[higgy1911]

I'm getting confused. So if I reject the teachings that Jesus/God can remove my guilt by the sacrifice described in the bible can I still be a Christian. This was the central doctrine of salvation in the version I grew up with. And also one of the least attractive features of mainstream Christianity down here in the Bible Belt .

[Thunder9010]

[Replying to Divine Insight]
I would consider it a true measure because I would contend that true religion has far greater capacity to ennoble humanity than religion that is false or only partially true. The more true a religion really is, the greater impact that religion can have. Thus, the truer the religion the greater its capacity to help make bad men good and good men better.

In the rest of your post, I think you're overthinking things. The history of Christianity is is more of a mixed bag than people are willing to admit. Many Christians did horrible things in spite of (and in direct rebellion against) Christianity. In spite of their promising present day, the Roman Catholic Church tallies the lion's share of guilt for horrible things done in the name of religion. Their centuries-old hatred of the Jews certainly helped the Holocaust happen, but the Holocaust stands in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Inquisitions stand in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus as well. The Southern Baptist Church's promotion and canonization of slavery stands in direct contradiction of the spirit of Christ's message to us. The genocidal massacres and wars against Native Americans were condemned done by Christians, but strongly condemned by Christian leaders.

But all of those are the sorts of things that would have happened anyways without Christianity needing to be there. Marxist Russia and China did everything possible to eradicate religion. Atheistic Marxist leaders Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong surpass every Christian in mass-murder. Mao and Stalin are #1 and #2 on the all-time list and they did it to their own people. Human beings tend to find excuses to slaughter each other. We tend to find excuses to be terrible to one another. If it's not religion it's something else.

Every other denomination of any significant size has it's fair share of skeletons lurking in the closet. Some have more than others. But I would strongly contend that Christianity's impact on human history has been far more positive than negative. (Yes that includes Catholicism, their positives far outweigh their negatives.) Christianity's potential positive impact has never been fully realized. How many Christians do you know that actually live their lives according to the Sermon on the Mount?

Steven Weinberg is completely ignoring the one and only instance in human history where religion was effectively taken out of the equation: Marxism. Marx envisioned a utopia where humans would be free from both religion and classes based on wealth. History tends to remember perfectly well the economics of Marxism, but almost always ignores the anti-religious implications. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, Pol Pot and others all tried mightily to eradicate religion. Most gave up on persecuting religion because the task of completely eliminating religion was impossible and they realized it. They still created a society where atheists became the privileged class. You could not be part of the Communist Party if you were religious. Atheists ran the show while believers sat on the sidelines. Things did not go well. Marxism is the only example we have to base any conclusions on and that is unfortunate, but their track record strongly suggest that atheism is far worse than religiosity.

I would contend that atrocities are not to be blamed on religion nor on nonreligion. They are to be blamed on bad people doing bad things.

[Zzyzx]

.

I would contend that atrocities are not to be blamed on religion nor on nonreligion. They are to be blamed on bad people doing bad things.

I agree -- and add that religion or non-religion are not to be credited with good things done by good people (irrespective of their religious or supernatural beliefs or absence thereof).

Likewise, in my opinion, none of the thousands of proposed "gods" can rationally be credited with good or bad actions (however measured) since invisible, undetectable, supernatural "gods" cannot be shown to be anything more substantial than human imagination.

[Thunder9010]

[Replying to Zzyzx]
Possibly true. In my experience, there is a lot more variability to it than that. Some religions seem to have better outcomes than others on average. Good people can come from any demographic or religion. Bad people can as well. But some religions seem to have a bigger positive impact in the world than others.

Atheism is unfortunate as it only has Marxism from which to glean any data. Marxism is the only mass movement that was overwhelmingly and dogmatically atheistic. With only that example to go on, one would conclude that, on the average, orgainized atheism is vastly more dangerous than organized religion.