# The Happy Heretic wants to debate a Christian **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003 "2003-06-11T00:48:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/61 "2003-06-25T10:29:56Z")
Has it struck anyone else as odd that she only wants to debate a “Christian”? Are we to believe that a) Christianity is the only world view with enough validity to make a debate worthwhile, b) that other religions are more valid, and therefore harder to knock, or (I’m going with this one) c) that she note quite up to speed on those “alternate faiths” like, say, Islam, Hinduism, or even Jainism…? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/62 "2003-06-25T10:39:38Z")
I think this is most likely a product of her environment; it would seem that she feels assaulted by Christian extremists. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/63 "2003-06-26T00:25:09Z")
Well, my friends, it looks as if it is over. > [@](#): > > From: "Judith Hayes " > > **Well, the reason I consider the Bible useful is that I believe I have experienced interaction with the God described therein - the experience came first, then the desire to know more; it just so happened that this took me along the path of Christianity and that I found my experiences to be consistent with it, it might have been quite different if I had been born in, say, India or Turkey, but there is no way to be sure of this. > Although you say that you accept my opinions on inerrancy, you still seem to be holding me to a rather loaded positions regarding ‘The Bible is the word of God’ - I’m not entirely sure how Muslims view the Koran (in the sense of it being ‘the inspired Word of God’), but I don’t see any reason at all why there cannot be deep truth in both texts.** > You have doubt that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? I find that astonishing. And yes, Muslims believe the Koran is the inspired Word of God. There is no reason why there cannot be deep truths in both texts. But it is clear to me now that you are not, repeat not representing, let alone defending debate-wise, Christianity. You found it, you like it, and that’s fine. But you are very nonchalant about whether it truly represents the Word of God, so you are not (whether you know it or not) part of mainstream Christianity. I’m not talking about fundamentalists, who go out of their way to exclude anyone who doesn’t agree with their every word. I’m talking about mainstream Christianity; and its tenets, with which I am very familiar, insist that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. There is no wiggle-room at all. The Christian viewpoint toward Muslims is that they have not “seen the light yet” but maybe someday they will. > > So, I think we must end here. My other debate partner is truly representing Christianity as 90% of Christians view themselves, and I must say we’re having an intersting time of it! But if you can’t be more specific, I see no point in continuing. > **Sure, I don’t feel that the Koran is particularly relevant to me personally (I have no doubt that many Muslims feel the same way about the Bible)- this insistence that one must negate the other seems to me like saying that a cookbook and a car repair manual cannot both be right, because they are so different.** > Once agin, wrong! One book claims Jesus is the Savior of the World. The other claims that Jesus is NOT the Savior of the World. These are not mere differences! How could two things possibly negate each other more than that? They are mutually exclusive, contradictory doctrines. There is no way on earth that Jesus can be the Savior of the World and NOT be the Savior of the World at the same time. Can you not see that? > > In any event, if I send you most of our debate thus far, will you give me permission to post it? I think it would provide some interesting balance to the other debate taking place. If you’d like to see what I’m interested in posting, just let me know, okay? > > And, again, thanks for all your time! > > Judith > [@](#): > > From: “Mange Tout” > > Hi Judith > > \*\*You have doubt that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? I find that astonishing. And yes, Muslims believe the Koran is the inspired Word of God. There is no reason why there cannot be deep truths in both texts. But it is clear to me now that you are not, repeat not representing, let alone defending debate-wise, Christianity. You found it, you like it, and that’s fine. But you are very nonchalant about whether it truly represents the Word of God, so you are not (whether you know it or not) part of mainstream Christianity. I’m not talking about fundamentalists, who go out of their way to exclude anyone who doesn’t agree with their every word. I’m talking about mainstream Christianity; and its tenets, with which I am very familiar, insist that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. There is no wiggle-room at all. The Christian viewpoint toward Muslims is that they have not “seen the light yet” but maybe someday they will. > > So, I think we must end here. My other debate partner is truly representing Christianity as 90% of Christians view themselves, and I must say we’re having an intersting time of it! But if you can’t be more specific, I see no point in continuing.\*\* > Fair enough, but lets be honest here; I think the real problem is that you would like me to be dogmatic, close-minded and beligerent, so that you can point out at length how wrong it is to be dogmatic, close-minded and beligerent. Hardly a situation in which there is any possibility that I could prevail. > What you describe as doubt and nonchalance is nothing more or less than my dogged attempt to keep an open mind and to think carefully about what I allow myself to believe. > > **Once agin, wrong! One book claims Jesus is the Savior of the World. The other claims that Jesus is NOT the Savior of the World. These are not mere differences! How could two things possibly negate each other more than that? They are mutually exclusive, contradictory doctrines. There is no way on earth that Jesus can be the Savior of the World and NOT be the Savior of the World at the same time. Can you not see that?** > I can see how that would pose a serious difficulty to someone attempting to be a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously, fortunately though, not many people attempt this. > My point is that _it is all_ subjective; I honestly believe that Jesus is the saviour of the world, I believe it in my heart, my experience supports the idea too, other people believe it isn’t so; I can’t climb into their heads, they can’t climb into mine. All either of us can say is that what we believe looks fine and right from where we individually stand. > To deny the possibility of being wrong is to decide that being wrong doesn’t matter. > > **In any event, if I send you most of our debate thus far, will you give me permission to post it? I think it would provide some interesting balance to the other debate taking place. If you’d like to see what I’m interested in posting, just let me know, okay?** > Yes please; my personal preference would be that you either post the entire debate (including this message, but excluding the mundane stuff about lost emails and the like), or none of it, but please feel free to post as little or as much as you wish. > > Best regards and thanks for the discussion > > Mike ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/64 "2003-06-26T14:27:21Z")
well, kudos & applause to Mangetout! I could actually understand Judith’s frustration that you weren’t hard-core enough for her _L_ but you did seem to bring out the better side of her! Congrats! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/65 "2003-06-26T15:18:42Z")
I can understand her frustration too. First time I’ve been given the old No True Scotsman routine from an atheist though. The debate was doomed from the very beginning; either I act out the very rigidly defined (and IMHO unreasonable) role and get torn to shreds for it, or else I try to honestly be myself and get disqualified from the debate on the grounds that I don’t act out the rigidly defined role. Funny really. ---
**Author:** ![Staale\_Nordlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Staale\_Nordlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staale_Nordlie)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/66 "2003-06-26T15:50:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*First time I’ve been given the old No True Scotsman routine from an atheist though. \*\* Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/67 "2003-06-26T17:51:54Z")
That`s because **mangetout** wears underwear under his kilt. Whereas a true Scotsman does not. The question should be “How did she find out?” ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/68 "2003-06-26T17:53:23Z")
😃 ---
**Author:** ![Artemius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Artemius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Artemius)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/69 "2003-06-26T18:48:03Z")
(First time posting on this thread.) I’m not a Chrisitian for the following simple reason. I believe Jesus lived and was probably the greatest human being that ever did so. Just by following his code of conduct and living by his principles will result in one living a life to its fullest. My problem is this: Just because I don’t believe he was literally/physically resurrected from a putrifying/crucified body and then transcended bodily into the skies, I am damned to an afterlife of hellfire. It seems just so absurd and the result of political/religious machinations for the accomplishment of hidden agendas. Your debator did have a valid point. You weren’t debating because you can’t. At least not on factual/logical grounds. Because you can’t use the source (the Bible) as a reference. No one can (successfully debate _for_ the Bible/Christianity) which is why all religion is based on faith, not facts. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/70 "2003-06-26T19:02:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Artemius \* > \*\*Just because I don’t believe he was literally/physically resurrected from a putrifying/crucified body and then transcended bodily into the skies, I am damned to an afterlife of hellfire. > \*\* Maybe you should just go to a different church. ---
**Author:** ![Bongmaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Bongmaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bongmaster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/71 "2003-06-26T19:04:41Z")
**(8) If God did not know there would be evil in his universe, he could not be omniscient (all-knowing). If God knew there would be evil but could do nothing to prevent it, he could not be omnipotent (all-powerful). If God knew there would be evil but chose to do nothing to prevent it, he could not be omnibenevolent (all-good). Can you reconcile these observations?** Please pardon my late entry into this thread, but I wanted to take a crack at #8: Its the last sentence that seems flawed to me, allowing evil to exist does not necessarily mean God is not good. How can anyone know the nature of the universe and automatically assume you can have good without evil? Or that there may be a deeper, completely incomprehensible reason for the existance of evil? By making the assertation that God allows evil and therefore can’t be good the author assumes she knows either the nature of the universe or the mind of God intimately. ---
**Author:** ![Artemius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Artemius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Artemius)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/72 "2003-06-26T19:47:00Z")
\<\\> I catch the implication and if I have the time I’ll look up the scriptures for you which make _believing_ in the crucifixion/resurrection a prerequisite for proclaiming onself a _Chrisitian_ which, in turn, is a prerequisite for entry into so-called _heaven_. Which, by default, winds you up in purgatory or hell by believing otherwise. I attend a Presbyterian church and every week they hammer home that point. Or, you could provide the scriptures yourself then go on and on explaining how they don’t really mean what they say. But you don’t bolster your argument a by unwittingly pointing out how obfuscated the scriptures can be and open to different interpretation. Mangetout tried to make the point that although there are so many different denominations it doesn’t matter because they all believe the salient core issues. Not so and you have just pointed that out. ---
**Author:** ![Artemius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Artemius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Artemius)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/73 "2003-06-26T19:52:43Z")
\<\\> I catch the implication and if I have the time I’ll look up the scriptures for you which make _believing_ in the crucifixion/resurrection a prerequisite for proclaiming onself a _Chrisitian_ which, in turn, is a prerequisite for entry into so-called _heaven_. Which, by default, winds you up in purgatory or hell by believing otherwise. I attend a Presbyterian church and every week they hammer home that point. Or, you could provide the scriptures yourself then go on and on explaining how they don’t really mean what they say. But you don’t bolster your argument a by unwittingly pointing out how obfuscated the scriptures can be and open to different interpretation. Mangetout tried to make the point that although there are so many different denominations it doesn’t matter because they all believe the salient core issues. Not so and you have just pointed that out. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/74 "2003-06-26T20:34:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Artemius \* > \*\*But you don’t bolster your argument a by unwittingly pointing out how obfuscated the scriptures can be and open to different interpretation. Mangetout tried to make the point that although there are so many different denominations it doesn’t matter because they all believe the salient core issues. Not so and you have just pointed that out. \*\* What, pray tell, is my argument. The Catholic Church, as laid out in _Lumen Gentium_, believes that non-Christians may enter heaven. > [@](#): > > 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 many achieve eternal salvation. While all Christian denominations believe that Jesus is the sole savior, etc., they do not all believe that non-Christians are doomed to hell. ---
**Author:** ![ready29003](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71e660/32.png) [@ready29003](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ready29003)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/75 "2003-06-26T20:39:06Z")
I really enjoyed reading this Mang, thanks. Could you explain this statement please: “To deny the possibility of being wrong is to decide that being wrong doesn’t matter.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/76 "2003-06-26T20:46:18Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m talking about mainstream Christianity; and its tenets, with which I am very familiar, insist that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. There is no wiggle-room at all. If she is really a former Lutheran, as she claims, she ought to know better than this. > [@](#): > > - > > So, I think we must end here. My other debate partner is truly representing Christianity as 90% of Christians view themselves, and I must say we’re having an intersting time of it! But if you can’t be more specific, I see no point in continuing.\* > > Fair enough, but lets be honest here; I think the real problem is that you would like me to be dogmatic, close-minded and beligerent, so that you can point out at length how wrong it is to be dogmatic, close-minded and beligerent. Hardly a situation in which there is any possibility that I could prevail. I think we all heard the bagpipes starting up as soon as it was clear that you were a reasonable person. Is the debate with the other guy posted anywhere? Anyway, well done, **Mangetout**. Colossians 4:5-6. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Artemius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Artemius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Artemius)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/77 "2003-06-26T22:00:38Z")
Artemius wrote: \ Neurotik replied: \<\\> So you are saying that there are some denominations that say I have to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection and some that don’t? That’s not what my church says. Who’s right? You? Them? Care to prove your position? Oh. I see. You can’t. No one can. What happened to Mangetout’s position that you were all on the same sheet of music regarding core issues? Neurotick wrote: \<\\> Wait. Are you retracting the insinuation you made above that not all denominations don’t believe in the crucifixion/resurrection or that I don’t personally have to believe it to gain salvation even though I’ve been exposed to the gospels and therefore “have no excuse”? What, pray tell, is your argument, you ask? The question seems to be what defines a Christian. You suggested I find another church where maybe I don’t have to believe Jesus was crucified/resurrected, (in order to gain salvation), which inherently implies there are denominations that don’t believe this, which debunks the “core issues” debate. In the best selling book, “The Case for Christ” (forgot the author), for some reason this belief is the bedrock that Christianity rests on. That is, Christ was crucified/resurrected. Otherwise, as the author goes on to say, it becomes just another “feel good” religion. So exactly what is your position regarding crucifixion/resurrection, being a Christian, and avoiding hell (once one is exposed to the gospels)? I’m confused and am highly educated. Imagine some high school dropout trying to figure this all out. Sheesh! Also, I probably wouldn’t be quoting Catholic dogma to bolster your argument. Credibility then becomes an issue. (just joking) But, regarding the part “…through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or the Church…seek God with a sincere heart…may achieve eternal salvation.” Well, where does that leave me.? I’m in the unfortunate situation of having been exposed to the gospels and choose not to believe the crucifixion/resurrection. Why, I think I’ll just relocate my worship services down the road where I don’t have to meet such stringent requirements to qualify for heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/78 "2003-06-26T22:08:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ready29003 \* > \*\*I really enjoyed reading this Mang, thanks. > > Could you explain this statement please: > > “To deny the possibility of being wrong is to decide that being wrong doesn’t matter.” \*\* What I meant by it is that I don’t believe it is possible to ever _know_ that you are right about something (although there are degrees of this - it is possible to be more sure about some things than others and it is possible to be really _ **very** _ sure about some things), therefore to wave away that possibility of being wrong, however tiny that possibility may be, is to render the matter closed to further thought - to decide that it doesn’t matter. Of course though, I could be wrong about all that… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/79 "2003-06-26T22:22:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Artemius \* > \*\*Your debator did have a valid point. You weren’t debating because you can’t. At least not on factual/logical grounds. Because you can’t use the source (the Bible) as a reference. No one can (successfully debate _for_ the Bible/Christianity) which is why all religion is based on faith, not facts. \*\* Yes, she had a point, but it was all sewn up from the get-go; there is no possibility of any opponent prevailing; it would be like me saying: “Mathematicians - why do you all insist that 2+2 is 5?” –Anybody who responds saying “Ummm, I _don’t_ insist such a thing” is clearly not a true mathematician (because all mathematicians insist that 2+2=5). –Anybody who responds saying “Yes, Yes; 2+2 is 5 and I can prove it!” will get their arse handed to them in a bag. The basic premise “Mathematicians insist that 2+2=5” is never questioned, nor is it allowed to be ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003/80 "2003-06-26T23:21:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Artemius \* > **So you are saying that there are some denominations that say I have to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection and some that don’t? That’s not what my church says. Who’s right? You? Them? Care to prove your position? Oh. I see. You can’t. No one can. What happened to Mangetout’s position that you were all on the same sheet of music regarding core issues?** Yes, I am certainly saying that there are some denominations that say you have to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection and some that don’t. Read _Luminem Gentium_, it explains it all right there. > [@](#): > > **Wait. Are you retracting the insinuation you made above that not all denominations don’t believe in the crucifixion/resurrection or that I don’t personally have to believe it to gain salvation even though I’ve been exposed to the gospels and therefore “have no excuse”?** I am retracting no such insinuation, since I made no such insinuation. Perhaps part of your problem is an inability to read. All denominations of Christianity believe in the crucifixion/resurrection. Not all of them believe that you personally have to believe it to gain salvation. The quote about those who do not know the Gospel or Church through no fault of their own is not saying that just having it read at you is enough. Perhaps you did not have a convincing presentation. It is not your fault if no one was able to reach you. \*\* > [@](#): > > What, pray tell, is your argument, you ask? The question seems to be what defines a Christian. You suggested I find another church where maybe I don’t have to believe Jesus was crucified/resurrected, (in order to gain salvation), which inherently implies there are denominations that don’t believe this, which debunks the “core issues” debate.\*\* You are correct that Christians believe in the resurrection of Christ. However, not all Christians believe that you must believe explicitly in order to be saved. In fact, many don’t. Such as the Roman Catholic Church. \*\* > [@](#): > > In the best selling book, “The Case for Christ” (forgot the author), for some reason this belief is the bedrock that Christianity rests on. That is, Christ was crucified/resurrected. Otherwise, as the author goes on to say, it becomes just another “feel good” religion. So exactly what is your position regarding crucifixion/resurrection, being a Christian, and avoiding hell (once one is exposed to the gospels)? I’m confused and am highly educated. Imagine some high school dropout trying to figure this all out. Sheesh!\*\* Christians do believe that Christ was crucified and resurrected. Not all Christians believe that a person who does not believe that is going to hell. See, this is a very simple concept. Even a high school drop out can grasp it. The Catholic Church merely maintains that it is the best and easiest way to find salvation, but not the only way as just about every religion has an element of divine truth to it due to the Holy Spirit and God’s grace. \*\* > [@](#): > > Also, I probably wouldn’t be quoting Catholic dogma to bolster your argument. Credibility then becomes an issue. (just joking)\*\* Right. Quoting the oldest (along with the Orthodox) branch of Christianity, the people who put the Bible together (along with the Orthodox), the branch that spends possibly more time on theological issues than any other (except possibly Orthodox) is a bad source and has no credibility. :rolleyes: \*\* > [@](#): > > Well, where does that leave me.? I’m in the unfortunate situation of having been exposed to the gospels and choose not to believe the crucifixion/resurrection. Why, I think I’ll just relocate my worship services down the road where I don’t have to meet such stringent requirements to qualify for heaven. \*\* That was my original point. If you have difficulty with the concept that you are going to hell if you don’t believe in the resurrection, perhaps you should find a congregation that doesn’t believe that and believes that all people are eligible for salvation, regardless of religion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-happy-heretic-wants-to-debate-a-christian/181003.md?page=5)