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?

[myth-one.com]

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

Absolutely! It's the Christianity as described in the Scriptures. Here it is:

There are two worlds -- the physical and the spiritual.

Man is given a 120-year maximum taste of life in the physical world.

Each man and woman then chooses to either extend that life to everlasting spiritual life on the earth with Jesus as their leader, or die a physical death and never live again.
============================================================================

Everyone gets what they desire!

How can it possibly be unattractive to anyone?

[Zzyzx]

.

Each man and woman then chooses to either extend that life to everlasting spiritual life on the earth with Jesus as their leader, or die a physical death and never live again.

How does this differ from an unsubstantiated religious rant or a preaching?

[OnceConvinced]

Man is given a 120-year maximum taste of life in the physical world.

Each man and woman then chooses to either extend that life to everlasting spiritual life on the earth with Jesus as their leader, or die a physical death and never live again.

But the thing is an innocent being had to suffer a torturous agonizing death on a cross in the form of a HUMAN SACRIFICE to allow that to happen.

[myth-one.com]

Man is given a 120-year maximum taste of life in the physical world.

Each man and woman then chooses to either extend that life to everlasting spiritual life on the earth with Jesus as their leader, or die a physical death and never live again.

But the thing is an innocent being had to suffer a torturous agonizing death on a cross in the form of a HUMAN SACRIFICE to allow that to happen.

Every human ever born dies. Many of these deaths are torturous & agonizing.

Yes, it was a requirement that He had to be innocent. Thus, He could pay the wages for our sins.

But being sinless, He did not have to die at all. The wages of sin is death, but He never sinned. He did it voluntarily.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The United States awards the Medal of Honor to some soldiers who give there life freely to save the lives of their comrades.

Why is Jesus' sacrifice any different?

[myth-one.com]

.

Each man and woman then chooses to either extend that life to everlasting spiritual life on the earth with Jesus as their leader, or die a physical death and never live again.

How does this differ from an unsubstantiated religious rant or a preaching?

I don't know.

You would have to show me an example of a typical everyday "unsubstantiated religious rant or preaching."

[Zzyzx]

.

The United States awards the Medal of Honor to some soldiers who give there life freely to save the lives of their comrades.

Why is Jesus' sacrifice any different?

The difference?

The US military investigates the incidents reported and gathers evidence that it actually occurred. A mere claim or story is not sufficient basis for awarding Medal of Honor.

The President, in the name of Congress, awards the Medal of Honor to the individual who, while as an active member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously, at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty, by courage and intrepidity. The act justifying award of the medal must be performed while fighting an enemy of the United States, or while involved in conflict with an opposing/foreign force or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in combat against an opposing military in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The act or acts of heroism must have required a risk of life and the individual have displayed personal bravery or self-sacrifice so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades. Incontestable proof of the act will be required and each recommendation for the Medal of Honor is considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armymedals/ss/moh_5.htm

Bold added for emphasis.

By comparison, the tales about Jesus are unsubstantiated and absolutely NO "incontestable proof" is available.

[Thunder9010]

.

The United States awards the Medal of Honor to some soldiers who give there life freely to save the lives of their comrades.

Why is Jesus' sacrifice any different?

The difference?

The US military investigates the incidents reported and gathers evidence that it actually occurred. A mere claim or story is not sufficient basis for awarding Medal of Honor.

The President, in the name of Congress, awards the Medal of Honor to the individual who, while as an active member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously, at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty, by courage and intrepidity. The act justifying award of the medal must be performed while fighting an enemy of the United States, or while involved in conflict with an opposing/foreign force or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in combat against an opposing military in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The act or acts of heroism must have required a risk of life and the individual have displayed personal bravery or self-sacrifice so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades. Incontestable proof of the act will be required and each recommendation for the Medal of Honor is considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armymedals/ss/moh_5.htm

Bold added for emphasis.

By comparison, the tales about Jesus are unsubstantiated and absolutely NO "incontestable proof" is available.

You do realize that a whopping 20 medals or honor were awarded the "brave" US military forces for what was probably an unprovoked massacre men, women and children at Wounded Knee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

There were only 500 US servicemen there, yet 20 of them were given the Medal of Honor for a massacre. That unit of 500 might just be the most decorated military unit in US history.

Every system is flawed, including the medal of honor.

[OnceConvinced]

Man is given a 120-year maximum taste of life in the physical world.

Each man and woman then chooses to either extend that life to everlasting spiritual life on the earth with Jesus as their leader, or die a physical death and never live again.

But the thing is an innocent being had to suffer a torturous agonizing death on a cross in the form of a HUMAN SACRIFICE to allow that to happen.

Every human ever born dies. Many of these deaths are torturous & agonizing.

Yes, it was a requirement that He had to be innocent. Thus, He could pay the wages for our sins.

But being sinless, He did not have to die at all. The wages of sin is death, but He never sinned. He did it voluntarily.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The United States awards the Medal of Honor to some soldiers who give there life freely to save the lives of their comrades.

Why is Jesus' sacrifice any different?

You are trying to sugar coat something that is horrific and ugly.

We are talking about a human sacrifice to a God, not a case of someone dying in war or giving their life for a loved one. War is ugly anyway. Nothing attractive about someone dying in battle. Nothing attractive about someone having to give their life just to appease a bloodthirsty deity either. We are talking about a scenario that just wasn't necessary. No blood sacrifice was needed to enable God to forgive. Nobody had to die. God could have come up with a less barbaric system if he wanted to.

Voluntary or not, someone dying a torturous death for crimes they didn't commit is a very ugly and immoral scenario. Nothing at all attractive about human sacrifice.

[Zzyzx]

.

You do realize that a whopping 20 medals or honor were awarded the "brave" US military forces for what was probably an unprovoked massacre men, women and children at Wounded Knee.

Every system is flawed, including the medal of honor.

The Medal of Honor has been awarded 3,468 times. Even if 20 can be shown to have had insufficient evidence (which has not been established), the error rate would be 0.0058.

The failure to present sufficient evidence regarding the proposed "Jesus sacrifice" is 100%

[myth-one.com]

Man is given a 120-year maximum taste of life in the physical world.

Each man and woman then chooses to either extend that life to everlasting spiritual life on the earth with Jesus as their leader, or die a physical death and never live again.

But the thing is an innocent being had to suffer a torturous agonizing death on a cross in the form of a HUMAN SACRIFICE to allow that to happen.

Every human ever born dies. Many of these deaths are torturous & agonizing.

Yes, it was a requirement that He had to be innocent. Thus, He could pay the wages for our sins.

But being sinless, He did not have to die at all. The wages of sin is death, but He never sinned. He did it voluntarily.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The United States awards the Medal of Honor to some soldiers who give there life freely to save the lives of their comrades.

Why is Jesus' sacrifice any different?

You are trying to sugar coat something that is horrific and ugly.

We are talking about a human sacrifice to a God, not a case of someone dying in war or giving their life for a loved one. War is ugly anyway. Nothing attractive about someone dying in battle. Nothing attractive about someone having to give their life just to appease a bloodthirsty deity either. We are talking about a scenario that just wasn't necessary. No blood sacrifice was needed to enable God to forgive. Nobody had to die. God could have come up with a less barbaric system if he wanted to.

Voluntary or not, someone dying a torturous death for crimes they didn't commit is a very ugly and immoral scenario. Nothing at all attractive about human sacrifice.

It was someone giving their life for the lives of loved ones.

According to the Bible, God cannot lie:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

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

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 . . .)

(not sure what time it is down under)

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