[quote name='Chris Reynolds' timestamp='1295568367' post='4762129']
1.) A man died on a cross which somehow saves the entire human race (only a TINY fraction of 1% of life that has been on the planet) from living in eternal damnation.
2.) Somehow we are still all born into sin and guilt and should spend our lives repenting and asking for forgiveness.
3.) If you don't do this, you will spend an eternity in a burning bad place - if you do this you will spend eternity in absolute happiness.
My question isn't which God is at the top... it's.. what could possibly make someone read a relic written thousands of years ago that says these things, and nod their head.. "yea... yea.. this makes sense, I'm going with this one."
If you frame the debate in such derogatory language then of course it doesn't make sense that rational people would believe it. But how about you rephrased it like this:
1.) We were granted the gift of life by an omnipotent ruler who had no obligation to do so
2.) The whole reason we were given life was to live in relationship with that generous ruler, and yet we ignore him and live as though he wasn't there
3.) That ruler went out of his way to call us back to him by stepping into his own creation, taking on human form and suffering the consequences of our rejection in our place, and yet STILL we ignore him
4.) That ruler eventually gives people what they ask for and puts them out of his presence forever, but graciously allows those who accept his rescue to be in his presence forever
Of course, that's also a pretty biased way of presenting it, but hopefully you will see that it's simplistic at best to say "I can phrase this in a way that sounds ridiculous and that's sufficient reason to dismiss all those who believe it as loons"
[/quote]
It still sounds silly. You don't seem to understand what's so silly about it.