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]

But the solution should be obvious to you -- being smarter than God!

The wages of sin is death, and all mankind sins.

Design a way to save mankind.

Mankind awaits your solution -- help us please.

It would be impossible to save mankind given those conditions.

No, it was possible under one scenario.

The wages of sin must be paid. However, if someone else paid the wages for your sins, you would not have to pay them.

This is exactly what Jesus did for those that believe in Him as their Savior.

You make is sound like it was a traffic ticket.

Do you think the courts would allow a murder to go free if you volunteered to take his sentence for him?

Executing you instead of the killer is hardly justice.

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

Killing an innocent man would not pay for the sin of sinners.

You are comparing and criticizing spiritual things as if they occurred in our physical world.

Moreover, Jesus didn't die remember?

Jesus was resurrected and received the gift of eternal life.

No, that is not true according to the Bible.

Here's why I claim that:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

The Word was made flesh as the man Jesus:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us... (John 1:14)

Jesus Christ was made as a man so that He could die for our sins:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Hebrews 2:9)

Having completed His mission, the man Jesus is now dead, and must remain so eternally to pay the wages of sin for the believers.

However, the Word which was "made flesh" lives on eternally. We still refer to it being "Jesus" who is alive -- but the "Word" would be more appropriate.

How all that works is beyond the human understanding -- as it is of the spiritual world.

If death is the wages of sin and Jesus was said to pay the wages of sin for anyone then he would need to stay dead.

Yes, for all eternity. In fact, there is no longer any need for Jesus to exist. He was made for the sole purpose of living a sinless human life, and paying the wages of sin by dying in place of all believers. He fulfilled His assignment, and there is no longer any reason for the human being Jesus to exist. Hasn't He suffered enough?

How many times do I need to tell you that in this scenario I would have no choice but to reject the offer. I cannot condone having an innocent man (or demigod) paying for my supposed sins.

Believe me, once was enough! Stop saying it -- I believe you and your rejection is fine. It's your choice.

Let me know if your choice changes!

And finally, if the creator God created us in such a way that it's impossible for any of us to be free of sin, then that was his failure.

I'm sure Jesus felt some responsibility because it was all created by the "Word" from which Jesus was made flesh.

And can't you just hear His Father saying, "you created that mess -- now go fix it."

Jesus has made it possible for us to be free from the consequences of sin. Upon being resurrected to everlasting spiritual bodied life, believers will be sinless newborn children of God -- with death will no longer even a possibility.

Why should we be held responsible for having been created by a totally inept God.

God did things the best way. Mankind screwed it up. We (man) are here to learn that His way is better than ours. He is looking for volunteers (we must choose Him) who will live for eternity under His leadership hopefully without rebelling like a third of the original angels.

And although we oftentimes think very highly of ourselves, we are actually Plan "B".

[higgy1911]

This is the least attractive but of Christianity. Even if Jesus died and spent eternity in hell he cannot remove your guilt or responsibility.

When you have done something, it's done. If you sin, then you have sinned. It doesn't go away. You learn from it and try to behave better as you go on. But Christianity's snake oil about forgiveness is neither true nor healthy. Jesus can't pay your debt, and even if he could it wouldn't be moral to allow him. Humanity needs to own it's debts and pay them. We don't need a scapegoat. We don't want one. No innocent persons suffering can change anything about what I have done, or what any sinner has done. And I find the notion itself to be a vile perversion of the concept of justice.

[Divine Insight]

Believe me, once was enough! Stop saying it -- I believe you and your rejection is fine. It's your choice.

Let me know if your choice changes!

Why would I ever change my choice? I have no desire to become an immoral person who would condone penal substitution. Why would you even suggest that I should change my mind?

Also why do you keep asking me to "Stop saying it"?

Christians continually and relentlessly ask people to condone this immoral act, and they even belittle those who refuse to become immoral by ironically proclaiming that they are immoral if they refuse to condone this penal substitution.

Christianity is the most insulting religion on planet earth. There is no other religion anywhere in the world that insults people more than Christianity. Christianity demands that people shirk their responsibility and accept a demigod scapegoat to pay for their supposed sins. Christianity is actually asking people to become disgustingly immoral and totally irresponsible.

And they never "stop saying it".

But boy, let someone refuse to condone the immorality of Christianity and the Christians seems to be very quick, to ask people to "stop saying that".

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for anyone who would shirk their responsibility by condoning having a totally innocent scapegoat horribly beaten and nailed to a pole on their behalf.

If someone were willing to do that in our society we would think they are the most disgusting lowlife we ever met. Yet here the Christians are demanding that everyone should do it and trying to make out like those who refuse are somehow 'immoral' people who deserved to be condemned.

I can only conclude that Christians must have such and extreme guilt complex over the whole thing that they simply can't handle the guilt of doing this unless they can get everyone else to do is as well.

I will never change my mind. If death is my destiny then so be it. I accept the penalty. I would rather die than condone having any innocent person or demigod pay for my supposedly sentence.

From my perspective those who are willing to accept penal substitution are nothing more than cowards who are so afraid of death that they would rather live for eternity in shame of their selfish immorality than to refuse the penal substitution.

Also remember, in this fairytale the wages of sin is death. Not a spanking. In fact this is why the gory beating of Jesus and nailing him to a pole doesn't even make any sense. All he had to do was die. Where in this fairytale does it ever say that the wages of sin is a spanking?

The whole idea that Jesus 'suffered' for our sins is something that doesn't even match up with the fairytale.

In fact, nothing matches up. Jesus didn't even die.

You claim that Jesus wasn't even resurrected:

Having completed His mission, the man Jesus is now dead, and must remain so eternally to pay the wages of sin for the believers.

However, the Word which was "made flesh" lives on eternally. We still refer to it being "Jesus" who is alive -- but the "Word" would be more appropriate.

How all that works is beyond the human understanding -- as it is of the spiritual world.

But this isn't the biblical fairytale. It was indeed Jesus who was resurrected. He even retained his wounds so the Doubting Thomas could stick his fingers in the wounds to verified that it was indeed Jesus.

If it was some magical spirit called "The Word", then what would that spirit have any need for the physical body that Jesus had lived in?

It's not that these fables are "beyond human understanding", it's simply that they genuinely make no sense at all.

As soon as you confess that this religious mythology is "beyond human understanding" you have just openly verified that even you recognize that it makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you confess that it's "beyond human understanding" and you also confess that you are a human, then you have just clearly stated that you yourself have no understanding of it. Therefore, for you to continue to try to argue that it can somehow make any sense is futile.

You have just confessed that it makes no sense.

[myth-one.com]

Also why do you keep asking me to "Stop saying it"?

That was in direct response to your question as follows:

How many times do I need to tell you that in this scenario I would have no choice but to reject the offer.

My response was:

Believe me, once was enough! Stop saying it -- I believe you and your rejection is fine. It's your choice.

[OnceConvinced]

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/

It is still clearly immoral and horrific for an innocent man to pay the price for the sins of another.

Imagine if you will, there is a man. He is a child rapist, torturer and murderer. This man is put on trial and found guilty without a shadow of a doubt and then sentenced to say death by electric chair. But then an innocent man (the guys brother) steps up and says Hey this is my brother. I dont want to see him die, so Ill take his place and die on the electric chair on his behalf. Now say the judge allowed this and this innocent man went to the chair and was executed on behalf of the guilty guy. The guilty guy was then released back into the community with a slate wiped clean.

I wonder how many of us would be enraged by that. Im guessing the majority of us. I bet you would be outraged too, wouldnt you, Myth? Wed be screaming out saying how dare they let an innocent man take the punishment for the crimes of that monster? How dare they let that scum bag free?

Imagine if instead of just one rapist/torturer/murder, there are a hundred of them and this innocent man requests to take the electric chair for all of them. It would be even more of an immoral unjust situation. 100 pedophiles released back into society and ONE man paying the price. Imagine if it was a thousand of them. Or maybe a million of them? How about a billion child rapist/torturer/murders being released back into society while one man pays the price for their crimes? What a horrible horrible unjust atrocity that would be. Imagine the outcry!

Yet, the situation you propose is exactly the same. An INNOCENT man died the horrible death that YOU should have suffered. It makes no difference whether he volunteered to take your punishment for you or whether he loved you. If a Christian had any shred of decency and integrity if he had any morals, he would refuse to accept that. He would be standing his ground and admitting that he is guilty of his crimes and should have to pay for those crimes himself.

Can you see how this is a very ugly situation?

According to the Bible, God cannot lie:

"Titus 1:2"]In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Alas the bible is full of lies. This scripture just cannot be taken seriously. What we have here is one mans opinion about God.

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?

Why should people get away with their crimes? That sounds like a horrible ugly scenario. I don't want pedophiles and rapists and people like that in Heaven with me and all the other people who I deem worthy of Heaven. That would be a truly ugly scenario. Imagine having child rapist/murderers in Heaven while potentially their victims are in Hell? A truly truly ugly scenario.

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.

The other thing is, I will not be judging people based on how well they kissed my butt. Heaven will be opened to those who have made an effort to be good law abiding and moral people. It won't be a matter of "did you believe in me?" or "did you worship me?" or "did you worship another God instead"? In fact if they worship another God, that's fine. I don't have an ego problem. I'm not insecure. Just as long as they attempted to live a decent life. There would also be no Hell. Heaven will be the reward.

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.

[Divine Insight]

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.

Truly. And this definitely has to count for something. Why should I (or anyone) be expected to believe in a religion that has a God that appears to me to be an absolute complete idiot?

Why should I believe that the Bible represents some all-wise all-intelligent God when I can imagine far better solutions to ever problem this God ever encounters in the Bible? And also, has anyone ever noticed that this God's solutions NEVER WORK? He never even solves a problem. What kind of a God is that?

Moving right along,....

Getting back to comparing Jesus with a Sacrificial Solider

To begin with no soldiers are asked to purposefully sacrifice themselves. Save for perhaps the Kamikaze pilots of Japan in WWII.

But even so, when has any solider sacrificed his life as a 'penal substitution' for someone else?

That's not why soldiers die. Soldiers don't go into battle as payment for the sins of their fellow countrymen.

Comparing Jesus to a solider is no comparison at all. And the same is true of comparison with firefighters, police, paramedics, doctors, nurses, you name it. None of these people are sacrificing their lives as penal substitution for someone else's crimes.

The Jesus story is a different situation entirely and should never be compared with people who risk their lives and die without even intending to die because they are fighting against a threat that is being made toward potentially GOOD people.

The Jesus story is entirely a story about Penal Substitution. And that's totally different from all these other cases.

We aren't asking soldiers to die for our crimes.

[myth-one.com]

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.

It is still clearly immoral and horrific for an innocent man to pay the price for the sins of another.

Noted.

I was Glad to see your response!

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 -- how can these sinners be saved from the wages of their sin -- everlasting death?

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.

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

And there is no eternal suffering defined in the Bible for any humans.

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?

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.

The worst penalty for any man is death. But everlasting beings cannot die. Thus, penalties are infinitely worse in the spiritual world. The devil, for example, will be imprisoned and tormented eternally in the lake of fire.

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.

It is designed this way because God is Love!

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

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

[Divine Insight]

He would create man a little lower than the angels and have them earn immortality through their obedience.

But that's not Christianity Myth-One. In Christianity there is no way to earn your own salvation. You cannot earn your salvation through obedience in Christianity. That's not an option. If it were an option there would be no need for Jesus.

Christianity is all about being given grace in spite of the fact that you refuse to obey God. Criminals and sinners are being given amnesty for the mere asking of it. All they need to do is accept the gift of grace and they will be "saved". No amount of obedience, or show of obedience on their part will do. In Christianity the very idea that you could EARN your own salvation through obedience is taboo.

Like I say, if you could do that you wouldn't need Jesus, you could save yourself by earning your own salvation. So it's no wonder that you think Christianity might be "beautiful" because apparently you aren't truly understanding what this religion is demanding of you.

If you think you can EARN you own salvation through obedience then you have the totally wrong idea of Christianity. (at least in terms of the popular orthodox views).

This view also violates the "Fall From Grace" premise.

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.

But again this isn't the Biblical Story Myth-One. Apparently you have created a version of Christianity in your mind in an attempt to justify a religion that has no justification.

The Biblical story does not begin with God creating Adam and Eve and then sitting down explaining to them the difference between Good and Evil and that they will have a choice to choose between good and evil, and that depending on what they chose they will either "simply die", or they can EARN eternal life by choosing to always do the right thing.

Actually if the Bible had been based on a scenario like that it could have potentially been far more believable. But that is not the biblical story.

The Biblical Story is that Adam and Eve were created entirely innocent and naive. They were then beguiled by an evil demon whom they could not have even realized was beguiling them at the time because they had no knowledge of Good or Evil before they had been beguiled.

Then after they had been beguiled God unleashed all manner of wrath over this. He didn't even give Adam and Eve the choice to repent from having been innocently beguiled.

Moreover, according to you at the moment they chose disobedience they should have simply been put to death right then and there. Why were they allowed to remain alive when the idea is that the wages of disobedience is death?

The story you are attempting to twist the Bible to become is not the biblical story.

I'll grant you that a God who actually made it clear that life is a test, and that we can earn our own salvation by passing this test, could have potentially been a viable God myth. But that is not the Biblical story at all.

You cannot earn your own salvation in Christianity. That's totally taboo. If you could then you would have no need for Jesus as your sacrificial scapegoat that you must accept to obtain grace precisely because it is forbidden that you should be able to earn your own salvation.

So the story that you are attempting to sell here is simply not the Biblical story. At least not in Christianity. It might pass for a Jewish version of the religion since the Jews reject the "fall from grace" concept anyway. They also don't proclaim that you can only obtain grace through Jesus. But that's a whole other topic.

In the meantime it's no wonder you think Christianity has the potential of being somewhat attractive. You have totally rejected the basic fundamentals of Christianity in favor of believing that you can earn your own salvation through obedience.

That is not Christianity.

You also seem to think that failure to obtain eternal life simply ends in a peaceful death with no "wrath" or even disapproval. In fact, that could hardly be called "Damnation".

Also, in YOUR Christianity I wouldn't need to reject eternal life. On the contrary, in YOUR Christianity I could simply earn it myself with no need to accept Jesus as my scapegoat.

Why would I need to accept Jesus as my scapegoat if I can earn my own salvation through my own obedience?

And finally in YOUR Christianity exactly PRECISELY what is it that you believe we must OBEY?

Can you give a list of precisely what we must "obey". Because without a clear and unambiguous list how could we know whether we are being obedient or not?

And if there is anything on that list that we aren't interested in obeying then perhaps death is the better choice. Why would anyone want to live for eternity if they are going to be asked to eternally obey things that they aren't interested in obeying.

According to you we should be able to simply politely "bow out" of this God's plan without being accused of being immoral heathens or being "damned" or having God unless his unholy wrath against us.

In fact, if you politely bow out of this game, this God should politely put you to death peacefully and not proclaim that you have been "damned" or anything else.

Rejecting this God's game should be a perfectly respectable thing to do. Also people who are fed up with life and want to commit suicide should be able to just request that this God end their lives peacefully and respectfully so that they don't need to commit suicide. After all, people who commit suicide are clearly distraught with life.

You say,

God is Love!

Well, if that's true, then why does God allow people to suffer in this life who then commit suicide. He should have stepped in first and helped them out with their problems, or offer to peacefully and respectfully terminate their life so that they wouldn't need to commit suicide in an act of pure desperation.

Or better yet, he could have simply swooped them up from this life and apologize to them for the harsh conditions explaining that heaven won't be anything at all like this, and then placing them in an environment that better represents what heaven will be like.

After all Myth-One, if this life is a test, what exactly is it testing us for?

If heaven is perfect then why have we been thrown into a cesspool of imperfections to be tested? Why would anyone who is suffering in this life have any incentive to live forever if this life is an example of what they are to expect?

You'd have a very hard time convincing me that this God represents Love of any kind. On the contrary he seems to be totally heartless and insensitive to people's anguish in this life.

[myth-one.com]

He would create man a little lower than the angels and have them earn immortality through their obedience.

But that's not Christianity Myth-One.

That's correct, that was the path to everlasting life under God's first testament with mankind.

In Christianity there is no way to earn your own salvation. You cannot earn your salvation through obedience in Christianity. That's not an option. If it were an option there would be no need for Jesus.

One could earn salvation under the first covenant by never sinning. 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:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7)

If the wages of sin is death and all have sinned, then all must die! That's how the original testament was set up. Thus, no replacements would be created under this covenant! What to do?

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. Man would then no longer be liable under that first covenant. Our liability would be eliminated when the penalty was paid. Therefore, we could enter into another covenant with God in which the flaw in the original could be corrected. This is exactly what occurred when Jesus Christ came to earth as a human. He lived a sinless life, then sacrificed His life as punishment for our sins. Since His sacrifice made eternal life possible for us, the new requirement to attain eternal life under the New Testament became a belief in Jesus Christ and recognition of His sacrifice.

Upon creating a New Testament, the first covenant became the Old Testament:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

The Old Testament vanished when Jesus paid the wages for our sins. We then fell under the grace of Jesus Christ for our salvation, not our works to fulfill the law as under the Old Testament. So sin does not control our salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

"Genuinenly" Attractive , huh?

[Divine Insight]

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.

If the wages of sin is death and all have sinned, then all must die! That's how the original testament was set up. Thus, no replacements would be created under this covenant! What to do?

But still, you are requiring that we believe in a God who initially thought this was going to work and then was shocked and amazed to find out that his original plan had no merit.

Again that's not going to fly. You are basically demanding that this God is inept already and has no clue what he's doing.

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.

Why should this sinless human be able to give his life to free the others from their death sentences? Shouldn't each person be responsible for passing their own test?

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?

We don't see that happening with Jesus.

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?

If there was one sinless person that person would have simply passed the test and won eternal life for themselves, not for all mankind.

Where did you get off proclaiming that if one single person is sinless this vindicates all of the rest of humanity? Where is that written in the Old Testament?

I think you're just making this up out of think air.

Therefore, we could enter into another covenant with God in which the flaw in the original could be corrected.

But a flaw in the original covenant requires that God himself was the one who had committed the flaw, because he's the one who supposedly designed this original covenant.

Also, people keep using this term "covenant" but that term actually implies an "agreement". I don't see where humans ever agreed to anything in these Biblical Myths.

This is exactly what occurred when Jesus Christ came to earth as a human. He lived a sinless life, then sacrificed His life as punishment for our sins. Since His sacrifice made eternal life possible for us, the new requirement to attain eternal life under the New Testament became a belief in Jesus Christ and recognition of His sacrifice.

But Jesus didn't die a second death. He only died a first death and was then resurrected and give the gift of eternal life. So he couldn't have paid the wages of sin for anyone.

Upon creating a New Testament, the first covenant became the Old Testament:

And again you require that God screwed up the first time around because he had no clue what he was doing. He had no clue that humans were not going to be able to be PERFECTLY OBEDIENT.

What an idiot God.

That is what you are asking me to believe. That this God is an idiot. He had no clue what the limitation of humans might be the first time around and must have been in total shock and awe when things didn't work out as he had expected them to.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

The Old Testament vanished when Jesus paid the wages for our sins. We then fell under the grace of Jesus Christ for our salvation, not our works to fulfill the law as under the Old Testament. So sin does not control our salvation:

You're quoting from a fairytale that shoots itself in the foot. A God who make a mistake on his first covenant and had to create a second covenant to correct things is a God who has no clue what he's doing.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Pretty neat, huh?

Well, any God who had a clue would have gotten it right the first time.

So had this story started out with Jesus offering grace to Adam and Eve in Genesis it might have potentially made some sense. But clearly that's NOT the biblical story.

Your interpretation of the Bible requires that God is an idiot who has no clue what he's doing.

So I see no reason to buy into that version. Nor does it appear "attractive" to me.

So NO SALE.

I don't see where making God out to be inept idiot can "save" this religion.