Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Meriweather]

conned into giving 10% of my pay to a church

And you aren't strong enough to resist such a con? Once again, Catholics are the greatest Christian majority. There is no ten percent giving required. The richest among us could give nothing, and no one would say a thing. Yet do keep in mind, those who elect to be part of a community are expected to contribute one way or another. The town I live in expects me to pay taxes. The political party to which I registered is constantly asking for donations, as are the police, the hospitals, and dozens of other Foundations that serve the less fortunate. Are these cons, too?

 

[sealybobo]

To be so arrogant to assume that this show is a result of accident/coincidence/evolution is a declaration of ignorance. BIGTIME

Don't you believe that when your earthly body dies your soul lives on in paradise for all eternity? Basically you are claiming you are a god yourself. Not only is that arrogant it's ignorant.

We don't assume anything. This debate has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. The feud started the day Moses came down from the mountain claiming god talked to him. From that moment on you people have been talking about him as matter of fact. Then you all came up with your own visit stories. Christians Muslims and Mormons. God visited all three since Moses.

We assume nothing.

 

[Meriweather]

Its a beautifully written con book. Either the men who wrote it were insane for believing it or liars writing it to control the masses. But it's maybe the greatest bullshit story ever written. Hats off. Can't really knock too much in the New Testament aside from things like "only though me can people go to heaven"

So does that mean all non chistians aren't in heaven?

Jews have an everlasting Covenant with God. God doesn't forsake his Covenants. God's law is written on every human heart. In Romans Paul says those who do not believe in God will be judged by their own hearts. (Often we are our own greatest critics.) The Church is intended to teach The Way Christ taught. While not all things are possible for the Church, all things are possible with God. Those who go a different way are entrusted to the mercy and love of God.

Jesus' actual words were, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

What if someone told me I had to go through libab to get somewhere. I don't know what a libab is, but say I got somewhere, going through that libab without ever knowing I was passing through a libab.

Jesus purpose is to draw people to the Father--not keep them from Him...in much the same way a libab (Arabic for door) is built so that people may enter a room.

 

[sealybobo]

Its a beautifully written con book. Either the men who wrote it were insane for believing it or liars writing it to control the masses. But it's maybe the greatest bullshit story ever written. Hats off. Can't really knock too much in the New Testament aside from things like "only though me can people go to heaven"

So does that mean all non chistians aren't in heaven?

Jews have an everlasting Covenant with God. God doesn't forsake his Covenants. God's law is written on every human heart. In Romans Paul says those who do not believe in God will be judged by their own hearts. (Often we are our own greatest critics.) The Church is intended to teach The Way Christ taught. While not all things are possible for the Church, all things are possible with God. Those who go a different way are entrusted to the mercy and love of God.

Jesus' actual words were, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

What if someone told me I had to go through libab to get somewhere. I don't know what a libab is, but say I got somewhere, going through that libab without ever knowing I was passing through a libab.

Jesus purpose is to draw people to the Father--not keep them from Him...in much the same way a libab (Arabic for door) is built so that people may enter a room.

What do you mean Jews have an everlasting covenant with god? How do you know that? Who told you that?

 

[Czernobog]

I would never serve the God of the bible. Ever.
He was a genocidal, selfish tyrant.

Just to be clear: You wouldn't want to even meet God. You have no interest in discovering if you have misunderstood/misinterpreted Biblical accounts. Your current judgment of God is final?

Okay. I'll humour you. How do you propose to understand "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys," as anything other than, "If it moves kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"?

 

[rightwinger]

God comes up and shakes my hand...I'm cool with it

I'd also like to ride a unicorn

 

[Meriweather]

What do you mean Jews have an everlasting covenant with god? How do you know that? Who told you that?

Genesis 17:7

 

[Meriweather]

Okay. I'll humour you. How do you propose to understand "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys," as anything other than, "If it moves kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"?

The orders that weren't completely carried out? I read that chapter as an argument between the political minded and the priestly minded in the Israelites. The "politicians" (so-to-speak) didn't see any reason to take it that far (and they didn't). The priestly minded were mindful of the direction God gave them--the Israelites were to remain a people set apart. The Israelites were not to be tainted by any outside influence lest their own culture be lost.

Remember, the Jews say the reason Saul lost his kingship was because he would not carry out what the priests commanded. (The priests said it wasn't there command, it was God's.) In any case, Saul was overthrown and David installed in his place.

 

[BreezeWood]

Okay. I'll humour you. How do you propose to understand "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys," as anything other than, "If it moves kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"?

you might consider this is a carnivorous Garden, do you pause to explain your own existance - with all that you claim why do you hang around, I'm sure you've eaten a steak or two.

its been dry lately, whole societies in the minor tributaries are being left to die by the evaporating beds they live in - the awful desert religions may be the very reason such occurrences happen to rid the Garden of their presence no matter who is killed to accomplish their demise as to foretell no being is more sacred than any other be as it may.

 

[hobelim]

Can't really knock too much in the New Testament aside from things like "only though me can people go to heaven"

So does that mean all non chistians aren't in heaven?

It means that unless you conform to his teaching about how to correctly understand and comply with the teaching in the law you cannot have the experience of eternal life in the realm of God, the kingdom of Heaven, on earth which is the reward promised for doing it.

There is no other way for you to have an exalted experience of life on earth without purifying and refining your own mind according to the instruction of the law as revealed by Jesus.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I'll humour you. How do you propose to understand "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys," as anything other than, "If it moves kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"?

The orders that weren't completely carried out? I read that chapter as an argument between the political minded and the priestly minded in the Israelites. The "politicians" (so-to-speak) didn't see any reason to take it that far (and they didn't). The priestly minded were mindful of the direction God gave them--the Israelites were to remain a people set apart. The Israelites were not to be tainted by any outside influence lest their own culture be lost.

Remember, the Jews say the reason Saul lost his kingship was because he would not carry out what the priests commanded. (The priests said it wasn't there command, it was God's.) In any case, Saul was overthrown and David installed in his place.

So, the command is only valid if you complete it? And, incidentally, you do get that the part they didn't follow was killing the cattle, right? They slaughtered everyone else, including the women and children. So, they pretty much carried out the important part - the genocide. And, at best, you are missing the point. It wasn't a case of priests, and politicians. It was between God, and capitalists. The capitalists thought they could use the cattle for their own profits, and God was pissed because they let the livestock live. Even allowing your generous interpretation, this means that when the Bible said God said, it wasn't really God; it was just men claiming to speak for God. So, what you are saying is that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. It is not reliable. So why should we listen to any of it?

Those are the only two alternatives you are left with from 1 Samuel, chapter 15. Either the Bible is not reliable when relating what God says, or God commanded genocide. Neither alternative gives a reason to give credence to the Bible, or to worship the Christian God.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I'll humour you. How do you propose to understand "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys," as anything other than, "If it moves kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"?

you might consider this is a carnivorous Garden, do you pause to explain your own existance - with all that you claim why do you hang around, I'm sure you've eaten a steak or two.

its been dry lately, whole societies in the minor tributaries are being left to die by the evaporating beds they live in - the awful desert religions may be the very reason such occurrences happen to rid the Garden of their presence no matter who is killed to accomplish their demise as to foretell no being is more sacred than any other be as it may.

So, God isn't inclusive. Some people just deserve to die. And you wonder why I consider your God barbaric, and reprehensible.

 

[Bonzi]

Maybe it's not about God for some but what happens after you die...which is eternity

So...pretend to like him, just so you can avoid Hell. You don't think an omniscient God would see that for what it is, and act accordingly?

Of course he would, but just saying if you knew what the implications were re: the afterlife, you might think differently.... maybe not, but, maybe so...

No. I really wouldn't. Genocide is genocide. Either you stand against that, or you don't. And if you suddenly just shut up, and get on board, because you're afraid of the consequences, then you don't.

So if it meant suffering forever it would be worth it. Ok

 

[Czernobog]

Maybe it's not about God for some but what happens after you die...which is eternity

So...pretend to like him, just so you can avoid Hell. You don't think an omniscient God would see that for what it is, and act accordingly?

Of course he would, but just saying if you knew what the implications were re: the afterlife, you might think differently.... maybe not, but, maybe so...

No. I really wouldn't. Genocide is genocide. Either you stand against that, or you don't. And if you suddenly just shut up, and get on board, because you're afraid of the consequences, then you don't.

So if it meant suffering forever it would be worth it. Ok

Yeah. Either something is wrong, or it isn't.

 

[Meriweather]

So, the command is only valid if you complete it? And, incidentally, you do get that the part they didn't follow was killing the cattle, right? They slaughtered everyone else, including the women and children. So, they pretty much carried out the important part - the genocide. And, at best, you are missing the point. It wasn't a case of priests, and politicians. It was between God, and capitalists. The capitalists thought they could use the cattle for their own profits, and God was pissed because they let the livestock live. Even allowing your generous interpretation, this means that when the Bible said God said, it wasn't really God; it was just men claiming to speak for God. So, what you are saying is that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. It is not reliable. So why should we listen to any of it?

Those are the only two alternatives you are left with from 1 Samuel, chapter 15. Either the Bible is not reliable when relating what God says, or God commanded genocide. Neither alternative gives a reason to give credence to the Bible, or to worship the Christian God.

When you read further, you did notice Amalekites were still living, correct, that somehow Amalekites did survive the genocide?

I am not a Biblical literalist. First, the Bible is not a text book, nor is it a factual newspaper account. It is written in story format, designed to present a lesson. It is a book inspired by God, but written by humans. The original authors had a message they wished to convey to the original audience (i.e., not to you).

In these accounts, it is not that difficult to discern the different political views or how often people claimed the will or voice of God when they did something clearly wrong. The story of Jacob and Esau clearly comes to mind. The law, tradition, and custom said the blessing went to the eldest. Through trickery Jacob ended up with the blessing and people started claiming the will of God. What I see in many of these stories is the people clearly didn't trust the ways of God--or that God could work His plan through a child the mother least liked.

The Bible, while divinely inspired, has human nature running through every account. What is divine? What is human? To identify between the two, it helps to be both a student of human nature and a student of divinity. It also should be remembered that we are told God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Your question is set up on a false premise. All reasonable people agree that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is a personal belief that will only be supported by faith and what an individual deems circumstantial evidence.

Okay. The question wasn't meant to set up an actual expected event. That was the reason for the word "hypothetical". It was just a thought experiment. The purpose is to explore if atheism is the only obstruction to being a Christian, or is there something irreconcilable within the theology of Christianity, that would prevent conversion, absent atheism.

From what I understand, the main and perhaps only real requirement for being a Christian is accepting JC as your savior.

Okay. So, saviour from what?

Your sins, and thus entry into heaven. Eternal salvation. Seriously, you have to know this.

 

[sakinago]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Kind of a silly hypo, but if there was proof of Christian god...and you chose not to follow, you’d be accepting terrible eternal damnation to hell, lake of fire type torture never ending. I doubt that you’d accept that because of a bunch of people you don’t even know who got flooded out thousands of years ago, that’s quite the “moral” stance. You also are personifying something that can’t be personified, it’s an all powerful being that created space, time, and matter to fill up space time...not bound by its own creation. Who also created morality, to which you’d probably have to admit that something that created a universe we can’t even fathom probably knows a bit more about the morality it created vs its own creation...that does a lot of clearly immoral things over its very short history. Your thinking of god as a leader, a president, playing with chess pieces, when if you can’t even fathom the creation itself, how could you fathom the creator. We humans personify stuff that really can’t be personified at all, like our dogs, other animals, mother earth, etc. We find human faces in the bark on trees, the moon, toast, etc just because that’s the way we are wired. How many times have you heard someone get angry/disgusted with lions because when a new male takes over he eats all the young. Or were grossed out when our dogs eat their own poo. Or we say our dog is giving us kisses when they lick us. That’s us interpreting human action through non human beings.

Two problems. First, one's moral principles are utterly useless, if they abandon them the moment it becomes uncomfortable, or even dangerous, to not do so. As someone once said, "Someone who will not stand for something, will stand for anything," We either have moral principles, or we don't. Jim's Rules #4: The only thing I have that is truly mine is my integrity. No one can take that from me; I can only choose to give it away. A corollary to that rule is that once given away, it is extremely difficult to get back. So, yeah. Even under threat of Hell, I would stand by my principles.

Second, The defence you are giving God is the Nixon defence: "When I do it, that makes it okay,"; "....not bound by its own creation...". See, I have a problem with that. If you are not bound by your own rules, then why the fuck should I be? After all, the Bible presents God as a leader. Shepard, "lead us not...", over, and over, he is presented as a leader to be respected, and admired. Sorry. Not if he is a leader who thinks he is above the very morals to which he will hold me accountable.

No you misinterpret my point there (with your second point). Considering how much you do not know compared to an all powerful creator. How would you know that the decision he made was wrong (remember time does not exist in that realm), so I couldn’t even venture to suppose that a god flooded the earth, and it was for a good reason that we cannot fathom...but that’d be the best reason I could give you. I could go with the farmer and the pigeon scenario, where there are pigeons who are hanging around a farmhouse for the little bit of warmth it provides, a farmer sees them and knows that they’ll freeze to death when the temp drops crazy low at night, so he opens the door to his barn for them, for them to stay and survive the night. They don’t go in BC they can’t put 2 and 2 together. He then tries to leave food by the barn door to bait them, they don’t go, BC they want to stay by the little bit of warmth that’s been keeping them alive thus far. So he tries to chase and herd them into the barn, they fly away and scatter, he throws stuff at them, but nothing he does can make the pigeons understand that he’s trying to help them and save their lives inside the barn. So wouldn’t it seem pretty silly of the pigeons to claim their morality is superior to that of the farmers, and characterize this farmer as a dickhead chasing them away from the warmth (or as pigeons would think, predator we need to escape from). Which is kind of what you are doing in this hypo, even if the Christian god was proven, that god is loving, and fatherly, and sees and knows all, and knows what’s best for us, even though we are clueless to know what that means...according to the Christian bible.

Okay. Now you're presenting the "God works in mysterious ways" defence. That isn't sufficient. That is just claiming that the means justify the ends; they don't. Ever. Once you claim they do, then you can justify any of a number of atrocities in the name of "the greater good". And your justification for God even goes a step further. It is, "I know something you don't". Yes, I snapped your baby's neck. But you can't be angry with me, or demand that I justify my actions, because "I know something you don't", and I am not under any obligation to tell you what that something is.

That's absurd.

And you’re still promoting pigeon morality vs farmer morality. This is all based on a book you don’t even believe. In that book there at 2 testaments (or promises), one testament shows more of a vengeful god, the other shows a much different picture only after that god sent down an ambassador in Jesus, that clarified things. So then either god changed, or the people’s understanfing of god changed.

Just saying, if there is an all powerful being, in the sense that I cannot fathom...I wouldn’t be stupid enough to think I was somehow smarter. I just think that’s a ridiculous statement on your end. It’s like you’re trying to debate with Mario as the game creator, while youre a game player, and tell game creator (who is actually Mario), that the creator is flawed because all the creator can do is shoot fireballs and jump on peoples heads, just because that’s just what Mario does, but Mario keeps dying from the mushrooms and bowser. If something said bang, and popped all this into existence, no offense, you’re an idiot to think you somehow know more. Our greatest minds collectively still think the universe shouldn’t even exist because there is too much symmetry among matter and anti-matter, which means the universe should not exist, despite our best efforts to prove otherwise. And if a god created the universe in such a way that against all astronomically statistically odds, you came into exististence (according to Christian philosophy) for a reason...really the two options you set forth in your hypo are not compatible. Either you know more than god morally, which would make god not exist since it is supposedly loving (according to Christian philosophy). Or perhaps your understanding of god and Christianity in general is severely limited to the world and the way you perceive (or want to perceive) it.

But to think you somehow would know more than a god, if it did exist, is just utter hubris coming out of the ass. Sorry, but this is a silly hypo for that exact reason. And really comparing pigeon to farmer mentality does not do justice. Clearly there is a lack of understanding of how incrdeible the universe is, and what it would take to create this. Or there’s a lack of understanding (a Socrates type I know so much because I realize how much I don’t know) of a god...or youre just personifying a god based off a great flood. The hypo is just silly.

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Your question is set up on a false premise. All reasonable people agree that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is a personal belief that will only be supported by faith and what an individual deems circumstantial evidence.

Okay. The question wasn't meant to set up an actual expected event. That was the reason for the word "hypothetical". It was just a thought experiment. The purpose is to explore if atheism is the only obstruction to being a Christian, or is there something irreconcilable within the theology of Christianity, that would prevent conversion, absent atheism.

From what I understand, the main and perhaps only real requirement for being a Christian is accepting JC as your savior.

Okay. So, saviour from what?

Your sins, and thus entry into heaven. Eternal salvation. Seriously, you have to know this.

Sure I do. You are the one who suggested that to be a Christian you only need to accept Jesus "as your savior," implying belief in, and worship of the Christian God is not necessary. I am simply walking you through the steps that demonstrate that that is incorrect.


Now. Those sins are against whom?

 

[Slyhunter]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

I presented the same premise before myself. Would those who didn't believe in God or a specific book suddenly change course with irrefutable evidence? Think of all the fake news going on today, that is how people would react. They could see a man in person performing a miracle and they would scoff at it "there's some trickery going on here".

I wouldn't be surprised if the Messiah was tossed into prison as some sort of fraud, charged with a crime. This is why Faith is just that, Faith.

See, I'm not actually talking about belief, though. I mean, in the face of evidence, belief isn't really a question, any more than belief would be a question in regards to gravity.

Rather it's a question of decisions. Does acceptance of existence require worship? And I am coming to the realisation that it doesn't. I can change my position as an atheist, with sufficient evidence, without agreeing to join a religious movement.

I'm agnostic for the very same reasons you are Atheistic. I believe someone powerful enough to be God of the Multiverse isn't going to care about my worship. I believe ALL religious books were created as a means for the few to control the many. So that the rich could continue subjugating the poor with a promise of a reward in the next life. If you realize that this is the ONLY life the poor would put up with less shit. Look at the Muslims and what they do because they think this life doesn't matter. And well it might not matter, but how you treat others in this life controls who you will be in the next life if there is a next life. An asshole here will be an asshole there. I also doubt Gandhi will be roommates in the same Hell as Hitler, or my father, the pedophile.

 

[Slyhunter]

Your question is set up on a false premise. All reasonable people agree that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is a personal belief that will only be supported by faith and what an individual deems circumstantial evidence.

Okay. The question wasn't meant to set up an actual expected event. That was the reason for the word "hypothetical". It was just a thought experiment. The purpose is to explore if atheism is the only obstruction to being a Christian, or is there something irreconcilable within the theology of Christianity, that would prevent conversion, absent atheism.

From what I understand, the main and perhaps only real requirement for being a Christian is accepting JC as your savior.

Okay. So, saviour from what?

Your sins, and thus entry into heaven. Eternal salvation. Seriously, you have to know this.

Sure I do. You are the one who suggested that to be a Christian you only need to accept Jesus "as your savior," implying belief in, and worship of the Christian God is not necessary. I am simply walking you through the steps that demonstrate that that is incorrect.


Now. Those sins are against whom?

This teaching teaches us that what happens to us in this life doesn't matter because we'll live like kings in the next life. Makes it easier for those at the top to squash those on the bottom.