(May 12, 2023 at 12:23 pm)Kingpin Wrote: Thank you for the response. I understand the "out of place" comment. Now I have some follow ups:
1. Original sin - Do your feel good/evil are objective truths or subjective notions based on popular societal opinion? I would argue that one cannot even have logical discussions about morality without invoking an absolute morality that transcends space/time/matter.
2. Resurrection - of course from a medical point of view, I agree. That is why it is defined as a miracle. I disagree that it lacks evidence. Even skeptical historians, and at least dozen non-biblical authors affirm Christ existence as a person, the tomb was indeed empty, and the apostles were willing to die to continue to spread news of His resurrection. Even skeptics agree something happened.
3. Heaven and Hell: If it were true these places existed, who should go to either? If God does exist and created all of this and us, on what grounds are we to pass a moral judgment against Him? This one is a common one most people have difficulty with and as a believer I admit it is probably the most difficult. If God is Holy, he must uphold Love and Justice without compromise. If God created a world where all will choose Him and go to Heaven, love is not possible. If you are a parent would you have a child knowing that they will utterly reject you? This has happened to countless parents. Do they love their child any less? No. But without the freedom to choose, we would be automatons, and love is not possible. In a world where love is possible, so is hate. God will not force anyone to love Him.
The substitutional atonement is remarkable showing how much God loves His creation in that He was willing to lay down his own life so that justice of sin was satisfied and mercy and grace given. When you read a news story like that of navy seal, Michael Monsoor, https://militaryhallofhonor.com/honoree-...hp?id=1265 he is hailed as a loving hero. There is no greater act of love than to lie down your life for another.
On what grounds it is irresponsible to accept Jesus atonement that he gives freely? The good news here Astreja is that God does not force you to accept it. If as you stated you do not WANT to live forever anywhere, God will not force you. You have a choice.
One last question, and please answer honestly. If Christianity were TRUE, would you become a Christian?
1. I believe that good and evil are subjective at an individual level, and intersubjective at a cultural level. Cultures that have morality that protects individual safety and freedom generally endure longer than cultures that permit violence and cruelty. Morality also evolves with cultures.
2. I do not believe in miracles, not at all, and until there is solid empirical evidence that someone can come back from the dead after several days in the grave, I will continue to view resurrection as myth. If the "empty tomb" actually existed, I can think of lots of scenarios that don't require a supernatural explanation.
3. I consider infinite punishment for the crimes of a finite life to be infinitely unjust. Therefore, no one at all should go to hell. No exceptions whatsoever. Surely a "holy" god would be smart enough to realize this. Your comments about the possibility or impossibility of love are risible, as love does not need to be reciprocated. A god that would send someone to hell for the "crime" of not reciprocating love? Despicable. The god that you are describing is neither loving nor just.
4. I pay my own debts, as I take full responsibility for my own actions. I do not consent to someone else dying in my place, particularly not for some nonsensical "debt" somehow inherited from imaginary proto-people.
I will not become a Christian because, even if it were true, it's an evil and psychologically damaging philosophy that has no place in the modern world. However, I think that the possibility of Christianity being true approaches zero and I have no concerns in that regard.
