How is Christianity not a Negative and Dismal Theology?

[Divine Insight]

Christian theology begins with Adam and Eve falling from grace. There's certainly nothing positive about that.

According to the Bible mankind only got progressively worse until the God had to drown out the entire species of humans in a Great Flood save for just a handful of one family and their spouses.

After that event everything went downhill again becoming no better than it was before the Great Flood.

Finally, this God supposedly became incarnate as a human on earth via the virgin-born Jesus. Was totally ineffective in convincing any religious or government leaders to change their ways in the slightest. And was supposedly crucified to pay for the sins of only those who would be willing to accept this crucifixion on their behalf as their penal substitute.

Supposedly only a "few" totally undeserving humans will be granted undeserved grace if they agree to accepting Christ's act of penal substitution on their behalf.

Notice that even the "few" who have received this undeserved grace did not earn it on their own merit. It is necessarily strictly forbidden in this theology that any human should merit their own salvation.

So what do we end up with?

A religion where a few undeserving evil people are granted undeserved amnesty for having condoned the crucifixion of Christ as their penal substitute.

Now I can see where the people who believe that they are among these few evil people who have been granted undeserved grace are "rejoicing" that they will no longer be condemned.

But is that truly a positive religion?

Sounds pretty dismal to me. All humans are condemned in this religion, and the only ones who can escape condemnation are those who are willing to have Christ crucified on their behalf.

I just can't see where there is anything positive in this religion?

I mean, I can see where those who thought they were doomed and believed to have been "saved" will see this as the greatest thing ever. But the fact that they had to first believe they were doomed is already a negative thing to begin with.

Question for Debate:

How exactly is Christianity supposed to be a positive or optimistic religion?

[shnarkle]

So are you suggesting that all Christians were heading down a road of criminal behavior and had to "turn their lives around"?

No, I'm suggesting that some people have way too much time on their hands, and can't stop obsessing over inconsequential theological doctrines which don't seem to bother the people who actually believe this stuff. In other words, it doesn't have to be criminal, unethical, or immoral at all. They just accept it as some fact, and move on to bigger and better things.

Apparently you don't think much of your fellow Christians,

Apparently you're incapable of engaging in a debate without presenting one logical fallacy after another. They aren't my fellow Christians.

or even of yourself for that matter since you seem to accept that this must be true for you as well.

Speak for yourself. You're the one who can't stop lamenting how negative it must be for all your poor fellow Christians.

And what about the children of Christians who were born into the religion? Did they too need to "turn their lives around"?

Yep, they eventually learned to go to the bathroom on their own. They eventually learned to wear their big boy pants, and they eventually learned to present an argument without engaging in the fallacy of the ad hominem.

Talk about a negative theology.

There's already too much of it already, I certainly don't need to add anything to it.

You are yourself proclaiming that Christianity is all about humans basically being criminals who need to "turn their lives around".

So this negative theology is something that you believe your fellow Christians should stick with then, right? What other option is there? Stick with it or reject it, right? If they reject it aren't they turning their lives around from something you admit was negative? How is that essentially any different? Didn't you reject this negative theology yourself? Didn't you turn your life around? If not, then why are you continuing with it? If so, then how can you continue to even talk about such a negative situation? What is compelling you to obsess over something so negative?(':?:')

There really is no effective difference between what you're preaching and what they preach. You turned from your false beliefs, and your life is presumably better, at least in your estimation, right? Why shouldn't they be allowed the same latitude with their beliefs as well? Did you repent from your Christian theology? If so then your theology now admits of the fact that you once had some bad ideas. Therefore your situation really isn't any different than theirs.

If that's not an extremely negative and self-degrading theology I don't know what would be.

I think you may be on to something with that insight. Run with that.(':o')

[shnarkle]

As absurd as the doctrine of original sin may be, it doesn't compare to the absurdity of commenting on it. When one decides to go on some obsessive rant on it, it is beyond absurd. Then it's time for your medicine.

Are you unaware that you have registered on a debate forum on the very topic of Christian theology?

Are you aware that you're not advancing your argument?

Accusing people who point out the failings of a theology as going on some obsessive rant is just ridiculous.

No, it's just an accurate observation.

The dismal aspect of the theology is well-known by Christian theists and apologists as Danmark has pointed out.

Again, you're not advancing your argument, but thanks for the play-by-play anyways.

The idea that all humans deserve to be damned and need to be "saved" from damnation is the foundational thesis of the religion.

And yet again, you're not advancing your argument.

Trying to argue that it's not is ridiculous.

Strawman argument. I'm not arguing that the doctrine isn't what it is.

This isn't something that atheists made up.

Strawman argument. No one is claiming that atheists came up with Christian theology.

Who are you trying to kid?

From what you've posted thus far, you're kidding yourself if you think you're advancing an argument.(':study:')

[Divine Insight]

So this negative theology is something that you believe your fellow Christians should stick with then, right?

Only if I embrace your premise, that they all need to turn their lives around.

Personally I don't think Christians are bad people. I think they have just fallen for a bad theology. We all make mistakes in life.

I don't see how you can defend a religion that has as its centerfold a badly beaten demigod being crucified on a cross as a symbol of supposed penal substitution for humans are not being negative.

What I highly suspect to be the truth is that you know full well that I'm right, and rather than concede that this is indeed a dismal religion you would rather accuse me of obsessing on the negativity that the religion clearly represents.

In fact, this may come as a surprise to you, but many Christian theists actually agree with this assessment. They recognize full well that the religion is extremely dismal and simply claim that this is all the fault of humans.

And then they claim that we should be "grateful" that our unworthy souls are being saved and to just get down on our knees and confess our unworthiness.

So apparently you aren't even fully aware of what many of your fellow theists are even preaching.

So this is hardly something that atheists made up.

[Divine Insight]

Are you aware that you're not advancing your argument?

The arguments have already been made.

All that is required at this point is for you to concede that this is indeed true.

It's a very popular theme in Christian theism that it is indeed a dismal thing that humans have fallen from grace and that they all deserve to be damned. That's a given.

The only bright side of Christianity is for those who acknowledge this and are glad that they will be saved from their deserved damnation.

How can you argue against this?

You can't save yourself in this religion. Only Christ can save you if you accept him as your penal substitute. That's how the religion works.

If you think you have warranted your own salvation in Christianity you clearly do not understand the religion.

[Divine Insight]

Strawman argument. No one is claiming that atheists came up with Christian theology.

No one claimed that atheists came up with Christian theology. All the atheists have done is point out that it's a dismal theology.

By the way, if you think the theology is so positive, why not present your arguments for that instead of attacking atheists?

If you have such good arguments for why Christianity is positive you shouldn't need to attack the atheists.

The fact that you are doing so reveals that you know they are right and that you have nothing to offer to the contrary.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 63 by Divine Insight]

So this negative theology is something that you believe your fellow Christians should stick with then, right?

Only if I embrace your premise, that they all need to turn their lives around.

Personally I don't think Christians are bad people. I think they have just fallen for a bad theology. We all make mistakes in life.

So your premise is that Christians have fallen for a bad theology and we all make mistakes in life. You're essentially professing the same thing they are now. You're even using the EXACT same terminology. They will say, they're "fallen", and sin means to "miss the mark" which is just another way of saying they made a mistake.

I don't see how you can defend a religion that has as its centerfold a badly beaten demigod being crucified on a cross as a symbol of supposed penal substitution for humans are not being negative.

Strawman argument. I don't see how you can continue to peddle this nonsense as if it were something I'm trying to defend. You literally can't post anything without resorting to one logical fallacy after another. The fact is that it just doesn't bother me like it does you. For me, Christ is a symbol for transcending self sacrifice.

What I highly suspect to be the truth is that you know full well that I'm right,

Given that half of what you post are strawman arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm posting, this isn't surprising.

and rather than concede that this is indeed a dismal religion you would rather accuse me of obsessing on the negativity that the religion clearly represents.

I'm not denying that the outlook you project onto their theology is dismal. I'm just pointing out that I have never observed anyone within any denomination of Christianity viewing any of it as dismal or negative. It doesn't seem to affect them in a negative way. They seem to have a belief system that allows them to enjoy life. Not only enjoy life, but sometimes even at the expense of those they would like to help. In other words, those who feel the need to evangelize others tend to inflame the anger and rage of those they evangelize to. They seem to bring out the worst in people around them who don't believe their theology.

They're able to polarize people into two camps; the saved, and the unsaved. And those who are cast into the role of the unsaved seem to actually take on that role. In other words, it seems that some people actually believe they're damned. My suspicion is that this is your real position, hence the negativity that is so pervasive in your posts. No one indulges in such a concerted effort to ridicule something that is of little consequence to them, and your posts indicate this has eternal consequences. I would only suggest that it be looked at as if it were fiction rather than an indication of your disturbing destiny. (':(')

In fact, this may come as a surprise to you, but many Christian theists actually agree with this assessment. They recognize full well that the religion is extremely dismal and simply claim that this is all the fault of humans.

Hmm, perhaps its because that's exactly what their theology indicates, and yet the solution to their theology is to point out that it isn't a problem or even negative at all because God has already taken care of it. They've been redeemed from their fallen state by Christ.

Christian theology allows for those who don't want to view themselves in such a negative manner to justify themselves. The gospel narrative even points out that Christ didn't come to save the righteous. Doesn't that seem to allow for your point of view? The righteous don't need or want salvation so Christ simply comes for those who actually need it.

What you're presenting is what I would characterize as "the party pooper" theology. It's a theology that shows up at a child's birthday party only to point out that each birthday brings them closer to their inevitable death. It's a theology that points out that Santa Claus doesn't really exist. It says that all you happy care free Christians are a bunch of snide and incurably negative people. It's a theology that projects misery and negativity onto anyone who has a smile on their face. The party pooper theology can't help but point out the negativity in a world of negativity. It must continue to do this in order to paradoxically make itself seem positive. The irony is inescapable.('8-)')

And then they claim that we should be "grateful" that our unworthy souls are being saved and to just get down on our knees and confess our unworthiness.

I don't doubt there are those who make those claims, but Christ and Paul don't make those claims. Although if it makes some people feel better about themselves, who am I to complain or even be concerned?

So apparently you aren't even fully aware of what many of your fellow theists are even preaching.

Apparently you think this is something I would care about.

So this is hardly something that atheists made up.

Given that you're applying this to my posts as if I'd actually posted it, this conclusion is inescapable.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 64 by Divine Insight]

The arguments have already been made.

Claims followed by logical fallacies are not arguments.

All that is required at this point is for you to concede that this is indeed true.

All that is required at this point is for your to concede that you're claims are pointless.

It's a very popular theme in Christian theism that it is indeed a dismal thing that humans have fallen from grace and that they all deserve to be damned. That's a given.

And yet it isn't all that is given, is it? Redemption is also a given, and there is nothing anyone has to do to be redeemed. Your claim is no different than pointing out that there is nothing anyone can do to evolve into the future. It is completely out of our hands, and entirely in the hands of the mechanism of evolution. We would simply add that we have evolved to point out that it isn't as negative as some might claim.

The only bright side of Christianity is for those who acknowledge this and are glad that they will be saved from their deserved damnation.

Yep, instead of obessing over the fact that a ship went down with over 100 passengers on board, you might want to look at the fact that they were all saved instead. Those who can't stop obsessing over the lost ship have bigger problems than a theology they simply don't agree with.(';)')

How can you argue against this?

I'm not. Why do you continue to confuse me with your Strawman opponent in this debate?

You can't save yourself in this religion. Only Christ can save you if you accept him as your penal substitute. That's how the religion works.

Perhaps, and you may not have any traits that make you fit for the world to come either. This is about as negative as it gets, and yet this is a theory you wholeheartedly embrace. We're not all adapted for this changing world. Some species, or members within a species are quite simply dead ends. Their genetic information simply can't go any further. They've literally been programmed into obsolescence. They're literally just waiting to die as the world moves on without them. That's not just dismal, it's pathetic. (';)')

If you think you have warranted your own salvation in Christianity you clearly do not understand the religion.

Fallacy of the Strawman argument and ad hominem. Pointless as well.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 65 by Divine Insight]

No one is claiming that atheists came up with Christian theology.

False. Here's just one example among many of your theology:

All humans are condemned in this religion,...

Correction: all humans used to be condemned in this religion.

... and the only ones who can escape condemnation are those who are willing to have Christ crucified on their behalf.

Correction: Paul points out that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for our salvation" He also points out that "will and effort" (Romans 9:16) are of no use in one's salvation. No one is willing in Paul's theology. In Paul's theology Christ is already crucified so it's a moot point. This is your theology, not Christian theology.
(':study:')

No one claimed that atheists came up with Christian theology.

Very true! Atheists come up with their own versions of Christian theology. Hence your strawman arguments.

All the atheists have done is point out that it's a dismal theology.

By obsessing on one single facet of it. Why doesn't it bother you that your theory of evolution posits you evolving in some pointless haphazard manner? There is literally no point to your own existence? Doesn't that seem a bit dismal? There really is no bright side to that, is there? Nothing like what Christianity presents. If anything, a better argument would be to point out that their bright and shiny diposition isn't warranted especially in relation to your theory of evolution.('8-)')

By the way, if you think the theology is so positive, why not present your arguments for that instead of attacking atheists?

I'm not attacking atheists. I'm simply pointing out that obsessing over one facet of a belief system is blatantly disingenuous to the point of requiring a psychological evaluation. (':shock:')I've already pointed out that the theology expressly reveals a redeemed world through God's intervention. It even points out that it is foreordained. It's inevitable, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. That's the actual theology. You can't get much more positive than that. I even quoted where Paul points out that just as sin entered the world through one man, so too salvation came through Christ. One of the gospel writers even goes so far as to point out that you can't do anything without Christ which is essentially to point out that you're already saved. Paul says the same thing when he quotes a pagan poet: "In him we live and move and have our being". It's a foregone conclusion that we're all saved with the possible exception of those who prefer to remain party poopers for the rest of their lives. (';)')

I'm not attacking atheists. I'm refuting idiotic and blatantly unsubstantiated claims.

[Divine Insight]

So your premise is that Christians have fallen for a bad theology and we all make mistakes in life. You're essentially professing the same thing they are now. You're even using the EXACT same terminology. They will say, they're "fallen", and sin means to "miss the mark" which is just another way of saying they made a mistake.

Nope, that's not my premise. That's your strawman.

So now you are claiming that every innocent mistake you make is a sin worthy of damnation and must be redeemed by having someone brutally crucified on a pole?

Sorry shnarkle, but you just get yourself in deeper with every post you make.

It's not my position that Christians are "sinners" for having fallen for a bad theology. That's your claim, not mine.

So you are the one who is creating strawmen here.

You may as well go off in the corner and argue with yourself because you most certainly aren't debating the points I've made.

Moreover, your above argument only adds to the negative view you have of your very own theology. Apparently you see innocent mistakes as being "sins" deserving of damnation.

That's your view. Not mine.

I don't see how you can defend a religion that has as its centerfold a badly beaten demigod being crucified on a cross as a symbol of supposed penal substitution for humans are not being negative.

Strawman argument. I don't see how you can continue to peddle this nonsense as if it were something I'm trying to defend. You literally can't post anything without resorting to one logical fallacy after another. The fact is that it just doesn't bother me like it does you. For me, Christ is a symbol for transcending self sacrifice.

In that case you aren't even arguing for orthodox Christianity. What you are arguing for is you own personal hopes and dreams of what Christianity could have been about had you been allowed to create the original doctrines.

But you didn't create Christianity and you are in no position to redefine it.

So you aren't even arguing for Christianity.

In Christianity Christ is NOT merely a symbol for transcending self sacrifice. He is the "Savior" that you must accept as your penal substitute who died on your behalf so that you could be "saved" from a God who is out to damn you.

I think it should be crystal clear to even most theists that you are not arguing for orthodox Christianity here.

I have no desire to argue with your personal dreams of what you wish Christianity could have been. That's not what Christian theology is all about.

In Christianity you cannot earn your own salvation by making personal sacrifices. If that were the case there would have been no need for Jesus to be crucified on a pole and then raised from the dead. Instead he could have simply preached that you need to make personal sacrifices if you hope to redeem yourself.

Not only this, but even in your modified theology you still need to "redeem" yourself. So even if you remove Christ as being your "savior", you still have a very dismal religion where you need to be "redeemed".

So even by rejecting Christ as your "savior" you still haven't removed the negativity of the theology if you claim that you still need to "redeem" yourself. It's still a very negative theology where you're in a situation where you need to redeem yourself. That's not a positive view of reality. That's a negative view of reality. You're in a bad situation where you need to redeem yourself. How is that good?

So even by rejecting Christ as your "savior" you still haven't made Christianity into a positive theology.

[Hawkins]

Whether it's optimistic is just a human perception. It has nothing to do with what message the Bible is trying to convey. Eden, the fall, the flood etc. they are the explanation on why Jesus Christ is a necessity.

God has a plan to build an eternity we call Heaven where God and angels and humans are to live together forever. It's like you are going to build a resort then invite all your friends and relatives to live in. You thus need to set up rules for them to follow, or otherwise they may disturb the peace, say, some of them may choose to lead astray your children.

That's the origin of Law. Whoever breaks the Law will have to leave God, that's the original sense of why Law exists. Both Adam (the man) and Satan (the angel) broke the Law and thus have to leave God.
After leaving God humans can no longer abide by God's strict Law to entitle the entrance to Heaven. This is proven from Adam till Noah. If the same Law for angels are used against the fallen humans, no one can be saved (while 2/3 of the angels can make their way to heaven as hinted by the book of Revelation). God either abandons humans as a whole (by the flood), or He has to seek for an alternative but legitimate way to save humans. The solution is Jesus Christ.

That's what the Bible intends to tell, whether you perceive it as optimistic or not is irrelevant.