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]

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.

If that's the deal then I choose death.

But how was that anymore 'attractive' than pure atheism to me?

With atheism I would have gotten my wish just the same.

[Divine Insight]

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?

It's totally different. In fact, if you claim that it's no different then you are claiming that God is just as weak and flawed as the United States government.

Countries go to war because they feel threatened by the people they go to war with. They also feel that diplomacy has failed and they see no other way to resolve the problem but to go to war.

Is that the case with God. Does God feel threatened? Has God failed at diplomacy? Is this God at the end of his rope to where he can't come up with a better solution than to desperately "go to war"? And who is this formidable enemy that has placed God in such a desperate situation?

There is no comparison with the supposed sacrifice of Jesus to a solider of war. Unless you want to reduce God being as incompetent as mere mortal humans who couldn't find a better way to solve the problems.

There is no excuse for an omnipotent omniscient God to need to be involved with having an innocent person, God, or demigod brutally beaten and nailed to a pole.

That kind of desperate act is a sign of weakness and an inability to solve the problem with true wisdom.

Comparing Jesus to a solider dying in a war is to actually suggest that God is totally inept and incapable of solving problems without restoring to acts of extreme desperation.

So your comparison here only suggests that you believe that God is inept and desperate. I see no reason to buy into a religion that claims that God is inept and desperate.

[myth-one.com]

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?

If that's the deal then I choose death.

But how was that anymore 'attractive' than pure atheism to me?

With atheism I would have gotten my wish just the same.

Exactly, you get your wish and are completely satisfied.

Also, you have the answer to your question -- true Christianity is genuinely attractive to everyone!

To believers and non-believers alike.

Good for you. Now you understand.

You're free at last.

[Divine Insight]

Exactly, you get your wish and are completely satisfied.

But I don't get my wish in this scenario. On the contrary I'm stuck with having to ask as hateful demon to annihilate me, which is most certainly not my wish. And many Christians proclaim that he won't even oblige my wish. Jesus himself preached that those who do not satisfy his desire will go the way of everlasting punishment. Peaceful annihilation is not an option.

So you are actually allowing for something that many Christians, and even Jesus himself did not offer as an option. You are allowing that this hateful demonic God of Christianity would actually grant me my request to simply be peacefully annihilated. Not something I specifically desire, but rather the only option I would have in the face of this hateful God.

It's certainly not "attractive" to me. In fact, pure secular atheism would be more "attractive" in that case. Because in pure secular atheism I would just cease to exist naturally and I wouldn't need to beg some hateful God not to hurt me.

Also, you have the answer to your question -- true Christianity is genuinely attractive to everyone!

To believers and non-believers alike.

You're wrong. It's not the slightest bit attractive to me. Where did you get that idea?

Good for you. Now you understand.

You're free at last.

Free from what? Condemnation from the hateful Christian God?

I'm already free from that because I don't believe that such a demon exists.

In our conversations in this thread all we have considered is atheism and Christianity. To be perfectly honest with you I find neither of those two scenarios to be "attractive". Fortunately there are other possibilities to choose from.

A karma based reality would be the most attractive for me. In a karma based reality I can rest assured that my next life will be considerably better than this one. So from a standpoint of pure 'attraction' a karma based reality would be the most attractive.

So if I were going to believe in something as a matter of pure "faith", then a karma based religion would be the best place to spend my faith. In that case, there's no hateful God that I would need to beg not to hurt me. There's no hateful God who would be threatening to harm me in the first place. Instead, I would simply get what I deserve which is a better life than this one.

So from the vantage point of "attractiveness" the karma based religions are far more attractive to me than Christianity with its hateful unreasonable God.

But reality may ultimate not be attractive. Pure secular atheism might be reality. Everything else may be nothing more than wishful thinking.

Attraction only becomes an issue if we are going to bother believing in something as a matter of pure "Faith".

And Christianity loses in terms being attractive in that way. I see absolutely no reason to believe in Christianity as a matter of pure faith. On the contrary my faith would be far better spent by placing it in the hopes and dreams of a karma based reality. That would be far more attractive than the hateful judgmental God of Christianity.

[Thunder9010]

To answer your original post:

1.) Religion that is obviously fact:

This is a tall order. Assuming that God is what he describes himself to be, he would be an extradimensional being. Nothing short of this could know everything, see everything and transcend space and time as we know it. We could not begin to comprehend such a being, much less prove his existence.

Perhaps the best evidence for the divine is the fact that human beings are actually designed to experience the divine. This fact has actually been scientifically proven. Presuming the atheistic view to be true, what possible evolutionary benefit is to be had from evolving such a characteristic? True, that alone does not prove the existence of the divine. But consider the many instances where the same very lengthy extremely detailed "halucination" is being experienced by multiple people at once with no variation between their experiences? That cannot be explained away so easily. In those cases, the atheist critic must resort to conspiracy theories, claiming that those parties experiencing the vision agreed to lie about it and never tell anyone.

I do think that it's not too much to ask for religion to make logical sense. To me, traditional forms of Christianity are beautiful in countless ways, but ultimately make no sense. Why should a being such as God take any interest humanity? I would contend that Origien was on the right track. Some Gnostic beliefs hit the same mark as well. We do not begin at conception. We existed long before that. I take the pronouncement by God that we are his children literally, not metaphorically. Why does this matter? Because an extradimensional being such a God would have no reason to care about tiny insignificant creatures like us unless we were the same sort of being that He is. But we are not like him obviously. The only way we could be the same "species" as God and still be so impotent ourselves: We would have to be his children. And as such, we are likely eternal beings who always existed. This life is just a step along the way of "growing up." Perhaps we are eternal, but infinite ... yet? Perhaps that is what faith is really all about?

I don't know where Maynard Keenan got his inspiration for it, but his song "Parabola" (by Tool) does an excellent job describing how this life works.

We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment,
We are choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside
This holy reality, this holy experience.
Choosing to be here in

This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Alive, I

In this holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in

This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Twirling round with this familiar parable.
Spinning, weaving round each new experience.
Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing.

This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. we are eternal.
all this pain is an illusion

.

2. The religion is so beautiful you should want to believe it on pure faith.

I don't think that a religion that preaches the possibility of eternal torment -- infinite punishment for a finite amount of sin -- can ever be beautiful. That aspect will always be ugly. Any religion that cannot explain any purpose of life cannot be beautiful. Any religion that confines a purportedly infinite being such as God to a finite number of pages of a paper and ink book cannot truly be beautiful. Any religion that cannot at least account for the existence of terrible things in this life cannot be beautiful.

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. But for me, it fulfills every requirement for being truly beautiful. Making sense out of everything and making it all fit together is certainly a tall order. The only sane approach is to admit that you don't have all the answers, but the answers that you do have truly are beautiful. But I do think that the notion that we are all offspring of the Gods and built with an eternal destiny beyond all comprehension is beautiful.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to Thunder9010]

You say any religion that cannot explain a purpose of life cannot be beautiful. I disagree. Generally speaking I think that any religion that insists there is a purpose, especially if it's a specific purpose, is ugly due to its tyranny. Our lives belong to us and if purpose is not entirely subjective then it should be. Anything else would be a twisted celestial slavery where I'm merely a pawn in someone else's game.

So when religion starts talking about purpose, I start getting suspicious. Most do, so most make me suspicious.

[Divine Insight]

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.

There's just no way that I can pretend that the Bible portrays such an entity. In fact, as far as I can see there are far better religions to be had if I want to believe in a beautiful God.

You say,

Any religion that cannot explain any purpose of life cannot be beautiful. Any religion that confines a purportedly infinite being such as God to a finite number of pages of a paper and ink book cannot truly be beautiful. Any religion that cannot at least account for the existence of terrible things in this life cannot be beautiful.

But there are other religions that explain all of these things far more beautifully than Christianity does.

Moreover, I could write my own fairytale that would explain things far better than the Bible and do it far more beautifully. Of course, I confess that there are many aspects of life that I could not justify. But the Bible doesn't justify them either, so I wouldn't even need to worry about competing in terms of justifying everything since the Bible doesn't do this anyway.

But yes, I could write a fairytale about an imaginary God that is far more beautiful than the Bible, and certainly more believable.

But in truth pure secular atheism truly does have answers for everything. Their answers may not be a beautiful as an imaginary God, but at least their answers make sense. Moreover, we aren't being asked to believe these answers on pure faith because they are supposedly beautiful. We are simply being asked to believe them because they make crystal clear sense.

Ironically, your presumption that my "goal" is to disbelieve in Christianity. Actually that makes no sense. Why should I have such goal? What purpose would it serve?

On the other hand it makes perfect sense why religious romantics would have a very passionate gold to disbelieve secular atheism. The reason they have the goal of rejecting atheism is precisely because they want to continue to believe in an imaginary God.

I don't think there's an atheist in the world who has the goal of rejecting religion just so they can believe in atheism.

[Divine Insight]

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

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.

If I was God I wouldn't have painted myself into an impossible corner to begin with.

Why should the wages of sin be death?

Also, what is sin? Sin in this religion is disobedience of God. But why should a God be obsessed with being obeyed? Also, didn't God decide what all the rules should be that constitute these "sins".

If I was an omnipotent omniscient God with whom nothing it impossible I would have set up a far better system than this.

Also you demand, "And all mankind from Adam and Eve have sinned.".

Why should that be the case?

If I was a God I would not create a species of creature and make rules for them that they cannot possibly hope to keep. That would actually be extreme cruel and devious on my behalf. I would make rules that they can keep. And there would no reason why at least the vast majority of mankind would not be able to keep them.

Also, concerning the few who weren't able to keep them, why should I be so quick to want to destroy them? Perhaps they are merely "defective". Maybe they are mentally ill, or something like that. Being God I could magically cure them and make them all better.

The every idea of a God who created humans and made rules for them that no a single solitary human could ever follow, only reveal that this God is a complete idiot.

So if you are going to ask me to "Play God" then let me be God from the get go. Don't be tossing me into the absurd mess that the Biblical God made. I wouldn't have created such an impossible mess in the first place.

And I certainly wouldn't have made the wages of sin death. If the objects of my creation are having that hard of a time keeping my rules, then I didn't do a very good job of creating them.

If an "evil mind" is a defective mind, then why not just heal it?

Why punish a defective mind?

The Bible makes absolutely NO SENSE at all.

[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.

Jesus himself preached that those who do not satisfy his desire will go the way of everlasting punishment.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Now ask yourself what is the punishment.

Hint: The wages of sin is _______ ?

And ______ is everlasting!

In fact, pure secular atheism would be more "attractive" in that case. Because in pure secular atheism I would just cease to exist naturally and I wouldn't need to beg some hateful God not to hurt me.

The good news of the gospel must be presented to everyone so that they can make an informed decision as to whether they prefer everlasting life or death.

And as you said, the gospel good news is not presented by Christian churches as an option.

You cannot hear it from any church to my knowledge, and will probably not hear it from them within your present lifetime.

Also, you have the answer to your question -- true Christianity is genuinely attractive to everyone!

To believers and non-believers alike.

You're wrong. It's not the slightest bit attractive to me. Where did you get that idea?

Here:

If that's the deal then I choose death.

But how was that anymore 'attractive' than pure atheism to me?

With atheism I would have gotten my wish just the same.

Your choice under God's plan is death.

And that is one of the two options under God's plan!

Thus, Christianity should be attractive to you, as your wish will br granted.

In our conversations in this thread all we have considered is atheism and Christianity.

For a good reason. The forum is question is: A Genuinenly Attractive Christianity?

[Divine Insight]

The good news of the gospel must be presented to everyone so that they can make an informed decision as to whether they prefer everlasting life or death.

But in Christianity everlasting life is not good news. On the contrary death is the far more attractive option. So if there's any good news with Christianity the good news is that we can actually choose death.

Your choice under God's plan is death.

So? I only chose death in that scenario to avoid what the Christian God has to offer. That's not an attractive choice. It's actually a choice to avoid something that would be worse than death.

And that is one of the two options under God's plan!

Thus, Christianity should be attractive to you, as your wish will br granted.

But I wouldn't choose death if there were actually BETTER options to be had. Christianity does not offer better options than death.

In our conversations in this thread all we have considered is atheism and Christianity.

For a good reason. The forum is question is: A Genuinenly Attractive Christianity?

So then according to you, you seem to think that Christianity is somehow attractive if it's the only way to avoid death.

Evidently you must feel that anything would be better than death. Clearly I don't.

One of my favorite sayings in American History was a quote from Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give death". That's been my favorite political quote since grade school. I completely agree with it. Christianity promises to rape you of your free will and your liberty. Living under the fascist dictatorship of the immoral God of Christianity would be worse than death. I would need to live for all of eternity agreeing with a disgustingly immoral God.

But you are right about one thing. If I ignore the threats of hell fire and eternal punishment where there will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth, and accept that mere death is actually an option in Christianity then it could be said that Christianity has something "attractive" to offer. But that's only because eternal life in Christianity is so repugnant.

So ironically you're basically saying that Christianity makes death attractive. That's a pretty sad religion don't you think?