The Fundamental Flaw of Christianity

As a former Christian turned Diest, and as someone who believes pursuing truth about our origins and the things unknown should be held in relatively high importance, I've spent much time to examining Biblical problems - contradictions, failed prophecies, scientific impossibilities, everything that I'm sure has been posted and re-posted here and elsewhere time and time again, and which no one wants to have another debate over.

None of these things really matter, though, because the fundamental flaw of Christianity isn't some specific verse in the Bible; it is the fact that it is ultimately a belief system that rewards intellectual dishonesty and punishes intellectual honesty. In other words, it rewards evil and punishes good.

Suppose there are two people, person A and person B. Both are "given the gospel of Jesus Christ" or however you want to refer to it.

Person A wants to make sure he only adopts truth, and not fiction. Naturally, he believes in verifying everything he hears before accepting it as fact. No sinister motives, just a person who makes sure the things he is told are actually true before accepting them, because who wants to go through life with false ideas, right? So he says "that gospel sounds great!" and sets forth to determine its veracity. He puts the claims under a microscope and examines them with a critical eye. Unable to find any hard evidence to verify what he was told was true, while coming across moderate amounts of evidence that it was not, he is unable to accept what he was told. Being open-minded, however, he doesn't reject it either, thinking "maybe more evidence will come to light at a later time, at which point the question can be re-examined."

Person B does not do any of the above. He does not make an unbiased attempt to determine the veracity of what he was told, but rather, accepts it based on the content of the message. Later, when informed of biblical contradictions, scientific errors, and failed prophecies, he will dismiss them out of hand. Of course, he is happy to cite evidence that supports his belief, but only the evidence that supports it. He makes no attempt to verify what he believes from a point of neutrality.

According to the Christian belief system, Person A is wretchedly evil and deserves to be tortured in unspeakable agony for infinity years. That's right; not one year, not a hundred years, not a million, or a billion years, but infinity. After the 10 quadrillianth year of being on fire, he still has an infinite amount of time to go. How dare he be intellectually honest.

Person B, on the other hand, is rewarded with eternal bliss. Of course, it is not universally agreed upon that singing praises to a deity forever constitutes eternal bliss, but that doesn't matter so much. What matters is that the outcome was based only on each person's conclusion, and not the process employed to reach it. Intellectual honesty is punished, while intellectual dishonesty is rewarded.

Of course, to properly reflect reality, you really need two more people, C and D. One of whom rejects what they heard out of hand simply because they didn't like the content (which many nonbelievers are guilty of, unfortunately), and one who accepts what they heard after some long hard study. I have a hard time believing this last case really exists however, at least for very long. I used to be the last case, but being intellectually honest dictates that you are constantly open to refining what you believe as more evidence comes to light, and your beliefs reflect the evidence, not vice versa. So I believe anyone who's truly in the forth category won't be there for very long.

The even more sad fact is that Christians will (often enthusiastically) re-enforce this idea that intellectual honesty is evil, and intellectual dishonesty is good. When asked the question, "If God wants everyone to believe so badly, why does he go to such great lengths to hide his existence?" or the more elegant question, "Why does God only answer prayers when there is ambiguity as to the cause?" they will actually claim that he does these things on purpose, to make sure that only the dishonest can believe in him. So more than just it being a matter of the conclusion being more important than the process, this belief system claims that God actively makes sure that only a flawed process can reach the desired conclusion.

Ironically, the Bible states in Isaiah 5:20:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

If this isn't a grand case of calling evil good, and good evil, I don't know what is.

Bible-thumpers, your thoughts? Do you think it's evil for a person to verify the accuracy of what they are told? If for example the Bible says that Tyre would be destroyed, become a bare rock in the sea, and never again rebuilt, and meanwhile I can look on Google Earth and see that it's quite a lively city, am I "evil" for concluding that something doesn't add up?

reply to post by SilentKoala


(I am not a christian)

According to the Christian belief system, Person A is wretchedly evil and deserves to be tortured in unspeakable agony for infinity years. That's right; not one year, not a hundred years, not a million, or a billion years, but infinity. After the 10 quadrillianth year of being on fire, he still has an infinite amount of time to go. How dare he be intellectually honest.

Where exactly in the bible does it say intellectual honesty will be punished with eternal hellfire?

The only people who end in hell are those who truly did evil...those who refused to help their fellow man etc.

Read Matthew 25

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


As for Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

This would apply to anybody who calls evil good and good evil. It has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty .

Surely, THE fundamental flaw of christianity is proffessing a belief in an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and ALMIGHTY god...a creator of all that is seen and unseen, that has created its own 'adversary' which it needs to battle against - (for some odd reason)...this would make god, NOT omnipotent, omniscient and almighty?!

THIS is the fundamental flaw...

A99

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Where exactly in the bible does it say intellectual honesty will be punished with eternal hellfire?

There are numerous places where it says only those who believe in Jesus can be saved (churches love to add on a number of doctrines to be included in this).

But you bring up another good point. Only some of the verses in the Bible claim that. Others, like the Mathew 25 you pointed out, tie a person's salvation to whether or not they helped the poor and unfortunate. Most churches today reject that passage out of hand though, and opt for the Pauline version of Christianity, which ties a person's salvation to whether or not they have faith in the Bible.

I truly enjoy this thread, thank you, posting a quick reply before doing some work,
I have pointed this out a few times, that's the fundamental flaw behind most
religion, they use dishonesty to promote honesty, that's one of the reasons
i think atheists find morality to be easier, we don't have to defer our morality
to a book written so long ago that morality was totally different.

Surely it is more moral to claim an immoral person or persons wrote a book and
got it wrong. than to have to lie about morality to seem as though your not defying a
gods wishes.

By allowing flawed morality to pose as good morality then we find religion
as the oppressor time and again, it is just so illogical.

reply to post by SilentKoala


I myself am gnostic and applaud your thread. Christianity, which I grew up in, Is extremely flawed and hypocritical. I was taught to worship israel. They claim that the formation of Israel was prophesied to occur in the 1900's. The prophet Isaiah prophesied that there would be a second reunion of the jews. The first was after Moses brought them back. The second was in what? 445 BC? I could be wrong... but the prophet Ezra brought back some of the tribes and reunited Israel the second time. Modern day Israel is a lie and needs to be exposed. The zionists have literally no stake to their claim.

reply to post by akushla99

Surely, THE fundamental flaw of christianity is proffessing a belief in an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and ALMIGHTY god...a creator of all that is seen and unseen, that has created its own 'adversary' which it needs to battle against - (for some odd reason)...this would make god, NOT omnipotent, omniscient and almighty?!

God has no adversary.
If you are talking about Satan, he is an adversary to the humans.
He whispers evil suggestions into a mans heart... and the man acts on it sometimes, thinking it was his idea.
Which is why Jesus says "resist the devil and he will leave.

This life is just a test...a struggle that man has to endure. Having faith in God makes a big difference.
Those who abandon God, will be abandoned to Satan.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by akushla99

 

Surely, THE fundamental flaw of christianity is proffessing a belief in an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and ALMIGHTY god...a creator of all that is seen and unseen, that has created its own 'adversary' which it needs to battle against - (for some odd reason)...this would make god, NOT omnipotent, omniscient and almighty?!

God has no adversary.
If you are talking about Satan, he is an adversary to the humans.
He whispers evil suggestions into a mans heart... and the man acts on it sometimes, thinking it was his idea.
Which is why Jesus says "resist the devil and he will leave.

This life is just a test...a struggle that man has to endure. Having faith in God makes a big difference.
Those who abandon God, will be abandoned to Satan.

There is no struggle, there is no satan, there is no whispering by some disembodied thought-form created by generations of misinterpretation upon concepts far too hard for the commoner man to understand in any other way than through the allegory of...a snake...

...a purely infantile notion that, once again, reanimates the bogey man mythos to get little children to do as they are told...because children really do need to be told...

Witness the imagery...
Witness the dynamics...
Witness what has ensued...

One cannot 'abandon' god...we are all the little flames from the great conflagration...children are NOT 'abandoned'...this IS one of the lies described in the OP...

A99

reply to post by akushla99

There is no struggle, there is no satan, there is no whispering by some disembodied thought-form created by generations of misinterpretation upon concepts far too hard for the commoner man to understand in any other way than through the allegory of...a snake...

What did you mean by an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and ALMIGHTY god...a creator of all that is seen and unseen, that has created its own 'adversary' which it needs to battle against

You say that God had some "adversary" and I thought I'd clear that up.
If this is not what you believe...fine. But it looked like you were bringing in your own ur own personal theology when you said...

One cannot 'abandon' god...we are all the little flames from the great conflagration...children are NOT 'abandoned'..

What religion is that from? What scripture? Or is that something that you have come up with on your own?
If so why is it somehow more "valid"?

This is the same old dichotomy of faith. I came across a severe but strongly supported criticism of Pope Benedict XVI. The arguments were well thought out and were based on writings of this pope. I sent it to a Catholic priest, who has a Masters in holy scripture and asked for his comments back. The gist of it was that the pope was heretical and blasphemous by opposing points in the gospels. The priest did not answer back and it was no surprise. Priests take vows of obedience and that basically means that they must forgo their dependence on their own intellect and education. I would call this blind obedience and although it is readily understandable, it is about maintenance of an institution, rather than a search for truth. Each person must decide if they will accept what amounts to a dilemma or reject the church because it is committed to it's own self preservation rather than a pursuit of what seems right, to the individual. This struggle lasted twenty years, in my life after a converting experience and I now have nothing to do with religion. It took a long time to get over the guilt but eventually realized that guilt/fear creation, is the primary function of religion. It is an amazing mind control technique that was fashioned by high intellect. If followed, it is excellent at preventing spiritual development of any person. Those that embrace religion, do so to obtain comfort, you know, the idea that they are on the inside track to permanent happiness. This is important, on a slave planet because the slaves don't mind pounding out their pathetic jobs because they think there is a big payoff at the end. This is a powerful scheme to get slaves to really put out.
Nothing is a waste and the worst of experiences serve as a bad example. Everything teaches. I have read that sometime after we die, we review all of our past lives, with their lessens and then we get to choose what we will experience next. We are removed from all fear when we go through this process. Many are prudent and choose that which will bring about needed consciousness growth. As it turns out, we have to experience everything personally and lessens can be temporarily bypassed but not omitted. It is rather obvious that we should choose that which is crucial to advance our growth in consciousness, in our next life. It is also said that many are in very damaged or in distraught condition, when they arrive in 4D after death. That is when the astral physicians go to work on us and return our soul to health, prior to deciding what to do in our next life. Some choose to delay their next life and stay in 4D for awhile. This is much like a vacation and we must get back to 3D, to continue our consciousness development.
I've learned that there is nothing to fear and although we may be momentarily afraid, we must control that fear and be it's master; it can be useful if not in charge. All is well, always was and always will be. Peace is our natural state. Our mission never changes; grow our aura, help others and create love. Ceau

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


If you follow the procedural 'set-up' through its steps...you see a very interesting thing...the original concept of an 'adversary' does not gel in any sense of the word, with a creator of all that is seen and unseen...

Omnipotence, omniscience and the quality of (really) being almighty is conclusive and indisputable...I 'subscribe' to this...

Morality (as, pointed in the OP) is for man to 'battle' with...nevermind the scapegoat of an inserted disobedient favorite angel of god, or indeed, some voice on your left or right ear tempting you at every turn...

Witness the imagery...yes we are children when we believe in childish reasons to be good and do good to our fellow man and woman...bogeyman?!...salvation?!...witness the dynamic...

The 'ins and outs' of my beliefs are better left unsaid...

A99

reply to post by SilentKoala

I don't know if I'm a Bible-thumper, I'm not even sure what that is. What I am fairly sure of is that what you present isn't like the Christianity I know about.

Your Person A who wants to verify everything may be comforted by this:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Of course, person A will find a great deal of evidence to the truth of the Gospels, and little evidence that it is false. It depends on how he is looking at the evidence, his motivation, his heart.

Person B, who accepts firmly and in faith, is foolish if it is "proved" that he is believing a lie. But that "proof" does not exist now, and hasn't in the past.

The outcome is not based on each person's conclusion, as you believe, but on whether they sincerely sought God and to do His will to the extent they were able.

Person D, of whom you have a difficult time in accepting his existence, is not all that rare at all. One of the great modern Christian thinkers, C.S. Lewis, was an Atheist into his twenties, and worked his way into Christianity. He stayed faithful to it through his life. (Did I mention he was a professor at Oxford?) G.K. Chesterton converted to Catholicism and was an extremely popular writer in many fields.

"If God wants everyone to believe so badly, why does he go to such great lengths to hide his existence?"

Hide? Jesus made quite a splash when he was here. Do you expect Him to hang around the neighborhood saying "I'm here still, I really am. please believe in me?"

"Why does God only answer prayers when there is ambiguity as to the cause?"

You mean when there is a cure which medical science has absolutely no explanation for, and believes is impossible, you were expecting Him to also come into the patient's room with a squad of angels and perform some unheard of surgery Himself? You require that kind of evidence?

If this isn't a grand case of calling evil good, and good evil, I don't know what is.

Well, how about defrauding the poor and calling it a clever business move? Or, burning someone's building and calling it a righteous protest? How about killing people who are looking for freedom to worship as they please in the name of enforcing balsphemy laws? Consuming far too much as your neighbor starves and calling it living the good life? Killing babies and calling it liberation and freedom? I don't think that what you've presented is a good case of calling evil, good at all.

Originally posted by charles1952
Your Person A who wants to verify everything may be comforted by this:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Can I ask what that is? I have never seen that before. Is that something uniquely Catholic?

Of course, person A will find a great deal of evidence to the truth of the Gospels, and little evidence that it is false.

I would have to strongly disagree with you here, but I don't want this thread to be about specific errors in the Bible; so I may start a new thread listing some of my favorites where we can debate all you like.

The outcome is not based on each person's conclusion, as you believe, but on whether they sincerely sought God and to do His will to the extent they were able.

So now you're tying the outcome to a person's obedience? Obedience and morality are not synonymous, in fact there is no correlation between the two. Morality is letting what you believe to be right dictate your actions; obedience is letting another being dictate your actions, regardless of whether they are moral.

I don't blame you though; this has never been religion's strong suite.

Person D, of whom you have a difficult time in accepting his existence, is not all that rare at all. One of the great modern Christian thinkers, C.S. Lewis, was an Atheist into his twenties, and worked his way into Christianity. He stayed faithful to it through his life. (Did I mention he was a professor at Oxford?) G.K. Chesterton converted to Catholicism and was an extremely popular writer in many fields.

Oh boy... the whole apologetics crowd. You know, an apologist is someone who has drawn their conclusion first, and then looks for evidence and constructs arguments to support their position. It's a backwards process; evidence should be examined first, and then the conclusion drawn. You may say the apologist did this in coming to their original conclusions, but once they are there they say "that's it, I've reached my conclusion" and then begin working the other way. The honest person, in contrast, remains open to refining what they think they know based on further discovery of new evidence or better reasoning.

"If God wants everyone to believe so badly, why does he go to such great lengths to hide his existence?"

Hide? Jesus made quite a splash when he was here. Do you expect Him to hang around the neighborhood saying "I'm here still, I really am. please believe in me?"

No, a handful of books say there was a guy named Jesus who made a splash while he was here. If you want someone to believe those things, expect them to examine the claims first to ensure their veracity. How do I know a guy named Jesus made "quite a splash"? Because 4 books say so? They were written by God and contain no errors, you say? Okay, let's give them a look.

"Why does God only answer prayers when there is ambiguity as to the cause?"

You mean when there is a cure which medical science has absolutely no explanation for, and believes is impossible, you were expecting Him to also come into the patient's room with a squad of angels and perform some unheard of surgery Himself? You require that kind of evidence?

No, what I mean is, there is no evidence of any miracles happening when the only explanation is undeniably that God did it, such as an amputee waking up with their legs grown back one day. People will claim all the time that so-and-so's cancer went into remission or some difficult surgery was successful and "our prayers were answered", but when it comes to situations where all ambiguity is removed, such as the case with an amputee, the success rate of prayer goes to zero.

Your response to this may be "well that's by design" which would exactly prove my point in the OP.

I don't think that what you've presented is a good case of calling evil, good at all.

I think a religion that claims people will be tortured because they acknowledged that evidence doesn't support a certain conclusion, while claiming others will be rewarded because they ignored evidence, is calling good evil.

i agree with your OP.
people should be more type D.
But most type B are born into the religion and defend it just as they would defend their country.
The sense of "whats mine is the best and dont tell me otherwise" rules rather than a honest investigation.
But some things in Christianity have no evidence other than the fact that its said to be that way, i refer to pauline theology, and the apologetics have backtracked into OT to pick evidence for it.
No wonder it took almost 300years to make a presentable theology about trinity and yet it takes a lot of faith to accept it.
So what you say about the fundamental flaw is very true, as very few christians here would look at your point of view and at least objectively agree rather than turning apologetics.
I believe that if the belief is true it doesnt need defending, just explaining, preferably without verses that are in question themselves.

reply to post by SilentKoala

Dear SilentKoala,

It's always a pleasure to try to reduce misunderstanding and have a solid conversation. Some of my writing may have been unclear.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Can I ask what that is? I have never seen that before. Is that something uniquely Catholic?

It is Catholic, it comes from the Catechism, the Church's basic teaching, although I have no idea whether it is uniquely Catholic. It seems like a just and reasonable Christian position, though.

The outcome is not based on each person's conclusion, as you believe, but on whether they sincerely sought God and to do His will to the extent they were able.

So now you're tying the outcome to a person's obedience? Obedience and morality are not synonymous, in fact there is no correlation between the two. Morality is letting what you believe to be right dictate your actions; obedience is letting another being dictate your actions, regardless of whether they are moral.

I don't blame you though; this has never been religion's strong suite.

There seems to be some confusion here. In Christianity, you are letting what you believe is right, God's teachings and your conscience, dictate your actions. You seem to agree with me. "Letting another being dictate your actions, regardless of whether they are moral," seems to be another area of confusion. Neither the Church, nor any other person connected with the Church ever requires anyone to do what that person believes is immoral. And if by "being" you mean God, then you're safe, he won't tell you to do anything immoral either.

Unfortunately, I can't see the reasoning behind your comments on Lewis and Chesterton. They came into their beliefs as adults after examining the evidence. They reached mature and adult conclusions, and told others what they had diascovered. I can't see why you believe they were closed minded after that. They were certainly open minded in reaching their conclusions. Had anyone given them convinvincing evidence they were wrong, i suspect they would have altered their thinking. You're accusing them, as apologists, of being intellectually dishonest. You know you can't show that.

On the medical miracles, I might not have been clear. There are cases, examined repeatedly by doctors, which have no other explanation than God's action. There is no ambiguity. They don't happen every day, that we know of, but they do happen. Panels of scientists, multiple reviews, reaching the conclusion that nothing on earth that they knew of could have caused the healing.

I think a religion that claims people will be tortured because they acknowledged that evidence doesn't support a certain conclusion, while claiming others will be rewarded because they ignored evidence, is calling good evil.

This is why I believe my writing must be bad. I said the opposite and showed that it wasn't the case. Christianity, as I know it, doesn't suffer from what you call a "Fatal flaw."

With respect,
Charles1952

[

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Of course, person A will find a great deal of evidence to the truth of the Gospels, and little evidence that it is false. It depends on how he is looking at the evidence, his motivation, his heart.

The bible clearly teaches that salvation is only through Christ Jesus all have sinned all are in need of salvation. You can not be good enough or work hard enough it is all through grace and that not of ones self. Thoses who did not know Christ will be judged and if not found in the lambs book of life will be cast into the lake of fire created for the devil and his angles.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

But what of the people who know the story of "Christ" and his (Catholic) church, but reject the story.

In my opinion, the fatal flaw of Christianity lies within the Pauline doctrine. Paul is the one who preached that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and his blood is atonement for God's judgement. Anyone who hears this doctrine but doesn't believe it is damned to hell.

The fundamental idea that an unjust murder committed under Roman death penalty law is somehow a magical ritual cleansing, only for believers, of sin in God's eyes is a bit to swallow this day and age. 2000 years ago, people still believed that blood contained magic and that there were many "gods." Heck, many believed that when they saw Jesus, he was the resurrected John the Baptist. It was easy to tell people that a dead man rose up and is living in those days. Not so easy to convince people of that today.

Disbelief in the divinity of Jesus, of his virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and blood sacrifice for sin, could get you killed in the early days of the "church."

The Gnostics were sincerely seeking god, and studied the words and teachings of Jesus. Their books are inspirational and have metaphysical truths, yet they were despised by the "church." Certainly Jews were also sincerely seeking God, but that didn't stop the Catholic Church from persecuting them.

So the above citation really only applies to people who have never heard the story the church presents of Jesus for salvation. Not the person who hears the story, and after consideration, rejects it as true.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
According to the Christian belief system, Person A is wretchedly evil and deserves to be tortured in unspeakable agony for infinity years.

Look, I see your "argument" in picture form:

www.youtube.com...

Substitute "the Christian belief system" with "the things some really ingorant people are telling me the bible means by the concept of "purging by everlasting fire" but which I readily accept as a valid interpretation of the information without actually doing my own study because, you know, I've got a computer with games to play and naked girls to watch!"

It's kind of like this: I walk into a room and find you talking about how terrible The Lord of the Rings is. I ask, "Why so?" and you reply, "Because, come on, how can Luke Skywalker get all the way to Mordor in the Enterprise is 12 parsecs? 12 parsecs isn't even a unit of time!" and I look puzzled for a moment then reply, "I see. You have never actually read the book, have you?" and you reply, "Well, no; but some guy told me all about it!" and I nod and say, "I think you may have been a tad misinformed." then walk away smiling.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

it is a joy to see you again. I hope it's all right with you if I put off the Pauline letters for now? I wanted to comment on this:

But what of the people who know the story of "Christ" and his (Catholic) church, but reject the story.

If I understand you, what about the people who reject Christ and Christianity? Well, I can see a few options. (Remembering "I'm just a guy," not a theologian, and am willing to be corrected.) If Christianity is true, then it would depend on the unbeliever's heart, desire for truth, willingness to follow the Natural Law, etc. I can imagine God's mercy opening to that person. But if it's rejected because the person wants to make his own rules, not be bound by anything but himself, or wants to worship something else to gain power, for example, it might be pretty darn tough to tell God that you rejected Him all through life but wanted to live in Heaven for ever.

Of course, if Christianity is false, I have no idea how things would end up.

It was easy to tell people that a dead man rose up and is living in those days. Not so easy to convince people of that today.

Might I suggest that it is quite the reverse? Today, with advances in science, it seems that dead men are getting up all over the place. I would wager that a handful of ATS posters could tell you that they had died for a certain amount of time and had been brought back to life through CPR or some other technique.

In the old days, dead was dead. That's why Lazarus' (sister?) told Jesus that there was no sense trying to revive Lazarus, because he had been in the tomb four days and was probably stinking the place up. They knew people didn't come back to life, which was why His followers had such a hard time believing it. (Doubting Thomas, anyone?)

Same thing with the Virgin Birth. Joseph was minded to put Mary away because he knew virgins didn't get pregnant. Those people didn't know about in vitro fertilization, but they knew enough biology to know what was miraculous and what wasn't.

One more time, it is a joy to see you. You're one of my favorites.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

Thanks for replying to me. I didn't direct my post to you personally because other posters used and commented on your citation. I'm always happy with our conversations.

It's true that the miracle of the virgin birth could easily be explained with present day science, and although I'm not sure that in vitro was used, as that implies an embryo, a fertilized egg, not necessarily belonging to Mary, was implanted, rather than the traditional method of insemination. But if we're looking at "God" as a scientist, then he certainly could have used some method to impregnate Mary without her having sex.

You know that I am one who tends toward the "swoon" theory, that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but survived with a little help from his friends. I'm not, however, willing to subject this thread to that contentious argument. But, I am surprised to see you use this logic as a means of present day belief in the resurrection. Certainly, of what we know today of medicine and near death experiences we could accept that Jesus "rose from the dead." But these assertions take the divinity out of the story.

So, we can agree that it's possible that Mary delivered Jesus as a virgin and that Jesus "rose from the dead." But we still have to contend with the churches assertion that his death was an act of holy sacrifice to God that satisfied his need for wrathful judgement against mankind's sin, but only for those who believe the story.

It's my belief that the life and teachings of Jesus are far more important to humanity than his death. All men die, some die horrific deaths for a cause, some are murdered because of the color of their skin or the differences in their gods. Most are just trampled by the wheel of time.

But if we are to believe that Jesus was God, or was sent by God to preform a mission, then he either completed the mission successfully or he didn't. Our feeble faith, by whatever means we find it, shouldn't have any effect on the outcome of the deed. If Jesus defeated the principalities of evil, if Jesus won the war, then what is there left for us to do? Certainly my belief in things way past my pay grade doesn't effect the will and acts of God.

You may say that life is better and easier for those that believe. Okay. But to the OP's point, it's dishonest to declare a belief to avoid an outcome of damnation, when disbelief is the person's reality. Certainly, God can tell the difference from a church goer who is hedging his bets against damnation to those who are sincerely seeking God.

Many Christians translate a person's inability to believe that the death of Jesus was a supernatural event that cleansed the world of sin for believers, into a hardened heart that hates God. So, in my opinion the fundamental flaw of Christianity is the doctrine that God sends disbelievers to hell, disregarding their sincere search for God in places other than the churches brand of dispensed wisdom.