Inerrancy and Apologetics

[liamconnor]

The question for debate is: Did the doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy (a late doctrine) hinder Christian apologetics?

I myself did not grow up in a Christian environment that taught a specific doctrine of the Bible. "God's word" came up; but infallible and inerrant did not.

Hence when I first met questions of science and historicity, I was not fazed. The discrepancies of the various resurrection accounts (1 Cor. and the four gospels) seemed to me like obvious attempts to record something that was emotionally stunning.

When I got a little ancient historiography under my belt, I saw that the differences among the gospels were also largely due to historical practices of the time.

But none of this seems to be recognized by critics of the resurrection, or even fellow Christians.


So, again, do Scriptural doctrines like inerrancy and infallibility hurt Christian apologetics (by which, obviously, I do not mean defenses of Scripture's infallibility or inerrancy, but historical questions of the resurrection)?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 19 by rikuoamero]

I totally agree with Rikuo. Liamconnor seems to always dismiss, and ignore the truly important questions.

Whether or not Jesus was resurrected is absolutely meaningless if this doesn't translate into being the most important factor in the fate of a human 'soul'.

The evasion of Liamconnor when it comes to questions concerning why this should be important or what a person is supposed to do about it is blatantly vacant.

For example if Liamconnor thinks that the only important thing is to be a "good person" based on what a person intuitively feels qualifies as "good behavior", then what's the big deal about whether or not Jesus was resurrected?

What would the difference be? I certainly don't need to change my behavior to become a "good person". I'm already a "good person". So if that's the criteria to being "saved" then I'm already there with no need to believe in Jesus or the resurrection. It's simply information that would be utterly moot.

On the other hand if the fate of my eternal soul depends on me believing in Jesus, then exactly what is it that I'm supposed to believe about Jesus? Simply that he was resurrected? Is that sufficient to save my soul?

And if I am supposed to do precisely what the Gospels say then what if I get any of that wrong? Then what? Am I condemned simply because I was misinformed or didn't understand something perfectly?

That clearly starts to move away from the idea of being a "good person". Not it becomes a thread of condemnation if we simply don't get it right. And if that's the only ONE Christian denomination (at best) will have gotten it right, and all the others will be cast into hell for having been misinformed and improperly taught by the clergy of their Christian demoninations.

This entire religion simply cannot be made to work.

If being a "good person" is the only requirement, then there would be absolutely no need for Jesus at all. No need for Christianity, no need for an Gospels, or Biblical texts containing instructions, commandments, and directives on how we are supposed to behave.

Liamconnor says the following:

This is correct. I do not consider the Bible as primarily a code for universal conduct. I do not think it was ever meant to be. No one needs the Bible to know that stealing is, at bottom (there are of course exceptions), wrong. I do not look to the Bible for moral absolutes. I do not think the Bible was ever intended to give us moral absolutes. It was intended to tell a story.

If this is true, then there is no need to have ever heard of the Bible, or Jesus, or Christianity, or any of that.

According to you all we need to do is not do the things that we "know" are wrong. Period.

Why would Jesus be required for that?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by historia]

As I understand it, Rikuoamero and (maybe more so) DivineInsight are arguing that the Bible ought to be a set of instructions on how to get to heaven -- or some such thing -- consisting of little more than a set of propositional truth claims that one ought to believe and a set of injunctions on how one ought to act.

Incorrect, especially on that "consisting of little more".

One of the claims from Christians is that there is a good thing (sometimes called salvation) that one can receive after they die. In order to receive this, one has to believe a certain thing: invariably, that "Jesus Christ died for your sins", that "Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for you", that "Jesus Christ died on the cross, resurrected and is the Son of God, who sits at the right hand of the Lord" etc etc etc.

When it comes to claims like those, it has to be clear. Otherwise, we might end up believing something "wrong".
It has to be accurate, that is, jells with reality. If it says Jesus visited Jerusalem, then Jerusalem had better have existed. Oh great...it did, and in fact still does exist.

If I don't believe the claims like the above, then apparently something bad is going to happen to me. Should this warning in fact be true...then I want to avoid it.
Thing is...I can't just change what it is I believe with a carrot and stick. I need more than that. I need evidence for the claims. I need to know what exactly it is I ought to believe.

But anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Bible recognizes that it isn't particularly like that. It's mostly a set of stories, with a hefty dose of poetic verse. There are some sections that include injunctions, of course, but the largest of these Christians consider to be, in one way or another, abrogated.

Liam appears to clearly understand that, and so views the text the way it is.

If this is a reference to Old Testament laws supposedly being done away with...why is it you say that? As if it's objectively true?
That's one of the things that I and DI have been arguing for years is not completely clear. There is that verse from the New Testament about not one jot or tittle being done away with.
That could mean the OT laws are supposed to stay. What if to obtain salvation, one is to follow OT laws?

Your language here suggests that the interpretation liam has is the correct one...by mere default?

A lot of critics of the Bible on this site seem to have adopted a set of presuppositions about both the nature and authority of the Bible that doesn't line-up with the way many Christians have historically viewed the text.

Historia, do Christians view the Bible purely as a historical document, one that could contain things that are false...or do Christians have a theology where they say that one is to believe certain things found in the Bible?

[Divine Insight]

Historia, do Christians view the Bible purely as a historical document, one that could contain things that are false...or do Christians have a theology where they say that one is to believe certain things found in the Bible?

Not only this, but even as a pure "historical document" of stories the Bible appears to me to have been written by extremely ignorant people who had some pretty weird superstitions. It most certainly doesn't impress me as something that would have even remotely been inspired by some supposedly all-wise supreme being.

Surely if there was an all-wise supreme being behind it, it wouldn't appear to have been written by barbaric idiots?

A God who curses a serpent to craw on his belly and eat dirt?
A God who curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth?
A God who turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt?
A God who commands men to commit genocide on a supposedly evil culture?
A God who plans out to have his very own corrupt priests call for the brutal crucifixion of his own Son?

What I can't understand is why anyone would take these stories seriously.

And never-mind morality. This entire religion is the antithesis or morality.

Jesus himself is supposed to be handing out free amnesty to immoral people. So clearly morality can't be important in this religion. Neither can justice be important in this religion. Christianity is the antithesis of both morality and justice.

In fact it has become nothing more than a religion that claims that even most immoral person in the world can be saved if they merely ask Jesus for forgiveness. That's all they need to do. So much for the value of morality.

Not only this, but a genuinely nice and good person would be cast into hell if they simply don't believe in this religion.

How can anyone not see how utterly absurd this is?

I mean seriously?

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

Jesus himself is supposed to be handing out free amnesty to immoral people. So clearly morality can't be important in this religion. Neither can justice be important in this religion. Christianity is the antithesis of both morality and justice.

In fact it has become nothing more than a religion that claims that even most immoral person in the world can be saved if they merely ask Jesus for forgiveness. That's all they need to do. So much for the value of morality.

Not only this, but a genuinely nice and good person would be cast into hell if they simply don't believe in this religion.

How can anyone not see how utterly absurd this is?

I mean seriously?

Just as a way of making sure the reader is not confused here DI, can you explain why you belong to the 'Disciple of Jesus' Group...who's group description states;

Jesus said: “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.� John 8:31. Everyone in this group accepts that, and tries to live according to it.

...when you obviously have very strong negative feelings towards things to do with Jesus + Christianity.

Thank You.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 24 by William]

Because I'm not a Christian William. I don't view Jesus in the same way that Christians do.

In fact, this is the perfect thread to address this because Liamconnor is always talking about a "historical Jesus".

Well, here's my view of a possible "historical Jesus".

To begin with he has absolutely nothing to do with any God named Yahweh. He was just a mortal man like the rest of us. Secondly, from the Gospel rumors it appears to me that Jesus was missing from this society for close something like 15-20 years. He started arguing with religious authorities when he was as young as 12 years old. Then disappeared and wasn't mentioned again until he was around 30.

Also based on the larger historical picture of what was going on in the world at that time it appears to me that Jesus most likely left his home society and went out, probably toward the east, and encountered Mahayana Buddhists. The reason this makes sense historically is because Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak at that particular time in history. And far more importantly, everything that Jesus taught was far more in line with Mahayana Buddhism than it was with the Hebrew Torah of Yahweh.

So for me, Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist. He taught the principle of Mahayana Buddhism, and NOT the principles of the Torah. In fact, even the Gospels have Jesus referring to the teachings in the Torah as "Your Law" when speaking with the Jewish Chief Priests. He doesn't refer to it as "God's Law".

So I simply don't view Jesus in the same way that Christians do. I also don't take everything in the Gospel rumors as being trustworthy to be the verbatim words of Jesus. And neither do many Christians. In fact, we have some very outspoken Christians on this very forum who clearly state that they "follow Jesus" not the Bible. In other words, they too, have created their own personal version of Jesus and go by what they think he might have stood for rather than what the Gospel rumors might have to say.

I actually agree with many principles that Jesus taught. Like to disobey the God of the Torah and refuse to stone adulterers to death.

That's Buddhism and NOT compatible with the principles taught in the OT.

Jesus also rejected Yahweh's teaching about putting evil out of our midst and demanding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He flat-out rejected that and replaced it with "turn the other cheek" and embrace those who are evil among us.

Again these are the principles of Buddhism, and clearly not the principles of the Torah or OT.

So, I can accept Jesus as one of my many gurus. I'm not placing Jesus on a pedestal. In fact, apparently Jesus learned what he leaned from Buddhism. He certainly didn't get his moral values from the Old Testament.

Also, notice that I joined the group, "Disciple of Jesus" NOT "Disciple of Christ", because I reject the whole notion that Jesus was the "Christ". IMHO, that superstition is most likely a distortion of history.

Also, look at what the group definition is:

Jesus said: “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.� John 8:31. Everyone in this group accepts that, and tries to live according to it.

And just like the vast majority of Christians, I decide what I consider to be the words of Jesus.

For one thing I toss the writings of Paul out entirely. I have no reason to think that Paul speaks for Jesus. And I don't even need to accept everything that Mark, Matthew, Luke or John wrote either. I can "cheery pick" from those too just like the Christians do.

You may ask then, "But why join this group?" Well, in part to show that no one holds the copyrights on Jesus. Not even the Christians. Jesus never wrote anything down himself so it's anyone's guess what any actual historical Jesus might have said or meant.

Also, since I see Jesus as just being a mortal man, and not the magical son of any God, I have no reason to think that the Gospel Rumors were somehow magically ordained by any God. In other words, I have no reason to believe that the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are nothing more than other men who were writing down their own opinions of what they thought Jesus might have meant.

I also have no reason to trust any of those authors because they have lied. No God spoke from the clouds confirming Jesus to be his son. That only requires common sense. If there was a God who was anxious to speak to humans directly he would surly be doing that more often.

Not only this but it makes absolutely no sense at all that a God would send Jesus into a crowd of people that he himself had commanded to stone anyone who commits blaspheme or apostasy and then have Jesus do precisely that.

And then this God is going to have Jesus perform a bunch of miracles, including supposedly being resurrected from the dead, which no one even witnessed first hand. And believing that even this wouldn't convince any one he had to speak from the clouds to insure people that Jesus really was his son.

Think about it. Those people back then had all those signs and heard God himself speak from the clouds. But today we will be condemned if we merely don't believe in outrageous rumors that are over 2000 years old?

And that's supposed to have something to do with how moral we are?

Like I say, how can anyone take this religion seriously?

Jesus was most likely a mystic-minded Jew who disagreed with the religious authorities of his day. He discovered Mahayana Buddhism and saw how it has far higher moral values and tried to bring those higher moral values back into his home religion. Clearly he failed miserably in that quest.

To be perfectly honest I don't really consider Jesus to be my teacher. Although I can say that he did teach me that it isn't worth trying to convince people of higher morals when their religion preaches immorality.

Jesus solved nothing. All he managed to do was have a religion rise up in his wake that for centuries actually used his name to carry out hateful atrocities. And still does so to this very day.

Christian hate each other in Jesus name. They all claim ownership of Jesus whilst pointing fingers of hatred at each other for not having created the same exact image of Jesus that they support.

They all use Jesus as a big rubber doll to beat each other over the head with.

So I figured, I should have my own rubber Jesus doll in case I need to fend off any irate Christians.

To be perfectly honest with you I'm sick of living on a planet where all people do is use Jesus to hate on each other. And that's how I see the bulk of Christendom. All they want to do is degrade and belittle any Christian sect or denomination that doesn't conform to the one that they have decided to join.

Back when I was a Christian my greatest antagonists were other Christians who disagreed with my view of Jesus. And back then I actually held that Jesus was the Son of God before I came to me senses and realized how utterly absurd that notion truly is.

But yes, I can be a 'Disciple of Jesus' whilst rejecting Christianity. I'm not claiming to be a 'Disciple of Christ'.

Also, being a disciple of one person doesn't mean I can't also be a disciple of many other teachers as well. I'm a disciple of Buddha, and Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein, and Richard Feynman, etc, etc, etc. I'm a disciple of many teachers. Far too many to list. I was a disciple of every teacher I had in college too.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 19 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
A classical historian doesn't read Herodotus with the agenda to "disprove the gods". He reads Herodotus to ascertain ancient historical events and ancient thought-patterns.

Does a classical historian read...oh I dunno...the Bible with the agenda of "proving the one true God"?

This word "agenda" is coming up more and more. I think it is quite misleading. There have been men who set out to study the Bible with the agenda of disproving its basic claim: that is, they assumed it was wrong based on the little they knew of it, and then delved deeper to support that assumption; they came away with the conclusion that the Bible was right. They then published what they thought was correct. Is speaking what you believe to be true, now an "agenda"? Maybe they are wrong about the Bible; that makes them wrong, not intellectually dishonest.

Do I have the situation correct, in the following sentence?

I have a soul, and the fate of my immortal soul rests on/depends on my believing a claim Christianity makes.

I confirm this.

Quote:
Irrelevant, because an historian is not required to answer every request for detail before his proposition that "Caesar did cross the Rubicon" should be accepted.

Is there some dire fate awaiting those who do NOT believe the historian's claim that "Caesar did cross the Rubicon"?
What if Caesar did cross it...but because the historian so badly bungles his job, no-one believes him? Is something bad going to happen to the non-believers?

I do not understand your historical methodology. Are you arguing one's historical methodology should change depending on the consequences of the subject? That to me is quite irrational. Are we to trust that historical methods when it demonstrates that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, only because that Caesar's crossing involves no personal claim upon me; but if the historical event in question does imply a personal claim, we are no longer to trust historical methodology?

So do you approach history, and most especially the history that Christianity claims has happened simply out of curiosity for the truth...or have you bought into the carrot and stick claims of Christianity? You are a Christian, and presumably so, you have a belief that believing Jesus Christ died for your sins and was resurrected is a requirement for you to obtain something good.

I am not sure the point of this question. Would you really believe my answer if I told you?

Quote:
This is correct. I do not consider the Bible as primarily a code for universal conduct. I do not think it was ever meant to be. No one needs the Bible to know that stealing is, at bottom (there are of course exceptions), wrong. I do not look to the Bible for moral absolutes. I do not think the Bible was ever intended to give us moral absolutes. It was intended to tell a story.

You believe...but you don't care whether or not the teachings/commands really are from God?
Remember, that's what I said, what you quoted from me?

I wholly confess I am not 100% certain all the commands of the O.T. came from God; I am not 100% certain of the historicity of all the events it records. There simply is not enough historical data. When I turn to the N.T. literature, the historical situation is quite different. I am still not confident that the gospels do not contain invention; probably they do. I am quite certain that the best explanation for the Jesus movement is that Jesus' disciples saw, touched, and communicated with what they believed was Jesus, over a prolonged period, shortly after discovering his tomb was empty.

The difference between yourself Liam, and myself & DI, seems to be that us two demand clarity, while seemingly you yourself are not.

I do not think so. I see the difference as one between someone who has a historical method, and people who do not, but have an agenda.

Here is what I perceive to be the difference between me and you:

IF the question was, "Was Jesus baptized by John?" I would find this an interesting question, regardless of whether it had anything to do with the miraculous claims of the gospel.

My impression of you and most here, is that you would say. "If somehow this argument leads to supporting his resurrection, then no, it is quite questionable; if it doesn't, then, who cares?"

That to me is the situation. That to me clarifies the difference between an historian and an agenda.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

I totally agree with Rikuo. Liamconnor seems to always dismiss, and ignore the truly important questions.

Whether or not Jesus was resurrected is absolutely meaningless if this doesn't translate into being the most important factor in the fate of a human 'soul'.

The evasion of Liamconnor when it comes to questions concerning why this should be important or what a person is supposed to do about it is blatantly vacant.

For example if Liamconnor thinks that the only important thing is to be a "good person" based on what a person intuitively feels qualifies as "good behavior", then what's the big deal about whether or not Jesus was resurrected?

The "important questions"? That clearly is subjective. I certainly admit I may not be interested in the questions important to you. In fact, I am not. It does not follow that I am not interested in "important questions".

There is no rule here that, as a Christian, my goal must be to convert everyone to Christianity.

My goal is to make arguments.

what's the big deal about whether or not Jesus was resurrected?

Precisely. In the apologetics page I am least interested in defending the implications of the resurrection, for they are based on faith. I am interested in defending the historicity of the resurrection, for it is based on reason: historical methodology.

When I wish to debate the implications of the resurrection, I jump over to the Theology subforum; for it is based primarily on faith: exegesis and the authority of previous Christians.

I once read of a man who believed that Jesus did in fact come back to life; he did nothing with this position. He did not assign any significado to it. The distinction between historical event and faith-based significance I first met in a philosopher whose name I cannot remember (he was modern, and it began with L...maybe it was Leibniz, but that doesn't feel right) and it made perfect sense to me.

[Divine Insight]

I am interested in defending the historicity of the resurrection, for it is based on reason: historical methodology.

No it isn't.

There is absolutely no rational or reasonable historical reason to think that the story of Jesus being resurrected after being dead for three days has any merit.

All we have concerning this event are the Gospel rumors which are extremely vague on what might have actually taken place.

I've already explained that there is a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation. Jesus simply survived the crucifixion. And this is why people say a wounded Jesus after the crucifixion. Even the Gospels have Jesus retaining his wounds.

There is absolutely no historical reason to believe that Jesus had actually died and was resurrected from death. In fact, that doesn't even make any historical sense at all.

So there is no historical evidence, or even a valid historical reason to think that these rumors about Jesus could be true.

Your continual claims that this makes historical sense is nothing short of nonsense.

The idea that Jesus might have survived a botched crucifixion is far more reasonable. Especially considering that even the Gospel rumors openly state that this was NOT an official Roman Crucifixion.

The Gospel rumors themselves have Pilate washing his hands of the whole affair and exonerating Jesus from any wrong doing. This was not an official Roman Crucifixion.

The Gospel rumors themselves have Pilate telling the Jewish Chief Priests to "see to it".

Matthew 27:
[22] Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
[23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
[24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

So even according to the Gospel rumors this was NOT an official Roman crucifixion. This was a make-shift crucifixion seen to by the Jewish Chief Priest, who no doubt were allocated a few rookie Roman soldiers to carry out whatever the Chief Priests told then to do. That chances that such an unofficial make-shift crucifixion would be botched at extremely high.

So historically, even based on the Gospel rumors, it makes far more sense to conclude that Jesus simply survived a botched crucifixion and when seen alive afterward complete with his wounds, rumors were sparked that he had risen from the dead. When in fact, he never died in the first place.

That makes far more historical sense than to conclude that the rumors about a resurrection might be true.

So you are totally wrong to claim that it makes historical sense to conclude that Jesus had actually died for three days and was magically resurrect. There is absolute NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE to even remotely suggest such a thing.

In fact, the evidence against such an absurdity is overwhelming. But you refuse to even consider the evidence against it. Apparently you just want this to be true at all cost.

But you most certainly do not have any "historical evidence" to support such outrageous rumors.

Your claim that this is a historical event is absolute nonsense and totally without merit.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]

liamconnor wrote:

I am interested in defending the historicity of the resurrection, for it is based on reason: historical methodology.

No it isn't.

There is absolutely no rational or reasonable historical reason to think that the story of Jesus being resurrected after being dead for three days has any merit.

All we have concerning this event are the Gospel rumors which are extremely vague on what might have actually taken place.

I've already explained that there is a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation. Jesus simply survived the crucifixion. And this is why people say a wounded Jesus after the crucifixion. Even the Gospels have Jesus retaining his wounds.

And I have explained again and again that your explanation does not meet sound historical criteria. It is plagued with ad hoc assumptions. It assumes the historicity of gospel material only when that material can be used for your purposes. From an historical standpoint, your answer should really run, "Well, dismissing the miraculous a priori, the best answer we have is x; granted, not a very satisfactory answer: it has a thousand problems. But, it is the best we have."

This is in fact the answer given by such skeptical historians as Bart Ehrman, Vermes, and E.P. Sanders. They are far less arrogant than you; they imply that the question of Christianity's origins is a mystery.



Now, if you want to debate (again) the historical data, let us do so in another thread. You create it; I will enter it.


(To make it more clear what kind of debator and Christian I am, let me say this: you have alluded to John's gospel to defend your position; but I--the Christian!--am not convinced of the historicity of John's gospel. I am on the fence. You therefore have to demonstrate to me that John's gospel--or at least the portion you are alluding to--is historical, before using it in defense of your ultimate position. Here is another example where I am approaching the Bible as an historical document, and you are not)/

[Divine Insight]

but I--the Christian!--am not convinced of the historicity of John's gospel

Where there you go.

You -- "the Christian!"

That's hardly an unbiased approach to history.

Clearly, as a Christian, you have highly biased view. You prefer to assume that Christianity is true, and then just try to argue from that view that history supports that view, when it reality it doesn't.

Also, it would be dead wrong of you to suggest that opposite in my case becasue I too was a Christian at one point in time and I also argued from that biased agenda. I finally came around to recognizing how highly biased and unrealistic that agenda was.

The moment you move away from clinging to wanting Christianity to be true, the sooner you can see the truth with unbiased sight.

If you think I'm "biased" against Christianity, you're dead wrong. I just point out that the fact that the evidence is strongly against Christianity. And not just the historical evidence, but I even show where Christian theology is utterly absurd.

I know you don't like it when I point out how grossly immoral it would be for a God to purposefully design a world where it is necessarily to have humans brutally crucify God's only begotten demigod Son just do he can offer them undeserved amnesty to avoid what would otherwise supposedly be "justice".

Think about. If it truly is "justice" that sinners should die, then sinners should die. Period. Offering them undeserved amnesty from justice hardly represents justice.

The theology doesn't even make sense.

Why weren't Adam and Eve offered undeserved amnesty from justice?

Face it, this religion doesn't even make theological sense.

Trying to argue that it supposedly makes historical sense wouldn't help the grossly flawed theology anyway.

I too am a "Christian" Liamconnor. I simply realized that the religion is false. Period.

So it's useless to try pull the "Christian versus Atheist" nonsense on me.

I was NEVER a "skeptic". I was a "believer" who finally realized that the religion cannot possibly be true. In fact, I discovered this precisely because I was trying to make perfect sense of the religion so I could teach it to others. It's impossible to defend this religion. Utterly impossible.

If you want to believe in an afterlife and a truly benevolent loving God, but all means believe it. But if you're going to argue that Hebrew mythology describes that God, then you have gone down a very dead end road to be sure.

In fact, this is the grave mistake that almost all theists make. They seem to think that some actual religion must be true, or there cannot be a God. So to avoid facing a potentially godless world they spend their entire lives trying to support and defend utterly absurd religious myths.

That's truly ridiculous if you stop and think about it. You can believe in a God without a need to defend and support some specific man-made mythologies.

Theists often fall into the trap of thinking that if the religion of their choice isn't true then there must not be a God. But that's not necessarily true at all. If you want to believe in a loving just God, just believe in one. In fact, you may as well make one up yourself because that's basically what you're doing anyway when you try to argue for your views of how some ancient religion is supposed to mean anyway.

Every single Christian creates their own personal "Jesus".

And no two Christians can even agree one what Jesus should be.

They may as well be talking about Peter Pan.