It’s not self-centered if it’s true because I have no choice in the reality of it.
A solipsist is a person who has made himself the god of his imagined universe, and is in this sense the opposite of a Christian, who has accepted the need to die to self and submit to the one true God.
I hope, probably more than you imagine, that you personally will escape the terrors of hell by letting Christ into your life. I hope the same for all people, including but not limited to Hillary Clinton.
Those who have never had the opportunity to hear or understand the Gospel, such as isolated cultures or young children, are not condemned by their ignorance. Quite the contrary—they’re saved by the blood of Christ shed on the cross.
But hearing the Gospel and rejecting it is a different matter altogether.
The historicity of Christ’s resurrection is well established in higher levels of discussion—that is, in academia.
When people like Bart Ehrman write for a popular audience, they often come to different conclusions regarding questions of historicity compared with what they write for a specialized audience. For this reason I encourage everyone to focus more on the scholarly record than on pop culture versions such as History Channel or books by Ehrman written for a popular audience.
One method used by scholars to determine historicity is this: the testimonies by different individuals regarding the same witnessed event will always differ in the smaller details.
For example a car accident. The only way to get absolute consistency in smaller details, such as the color of the car, the speed it was going, or the direction it came from, and all the other details—is if everyone got together beforehand and conspired to embellish or to lie.
In this way you can see that the discrepancy between various accounts of Christ’s resurrection regarding nonessential details in fact helps confirm the historical reliability of it.
If there is no sorrow in heaven, then there's no reason to worry about anything. It makes sense that Jesus said take no thought for the morrow, since this is all irrelevant.
It's somewhat contradictory for there even to be any evangelism. Leave things as they are, since it doesn't matter in the long run since there's no sorrow for the damned who are condemned because they didn't share the same thoughts as you do.
The more you expand on this, the more I'm glad that there's NO evidence that it's true, and I find the whole idea ghastly. Heaven as you describe it less a place of everlasting peace and more like Brave New World. God gives you some soma so that you don't care about anything enough to be sorrowful about the outcome.
The academic and scholarly acceptance of Christ's resurrection is an erroneous assumption on your part, and even some of the more religious scholars will admit that the Resurrection is more an article of faith than any sort of historical fact.
The consequences of the accuracy of a car crash are considerably less than the fate of every homo sapien soul, so I think the example is rather juvenile.
When claims are made that violate the laws of physics, biology, and nature, it's rather incumbent for the evidence to be air tight.
Christian apologetics is famous for saying that doubt and inaccuracy actually IMPROVES the case for historicity. But even if that were true, there's still the problem of Paul never mentioning in the 100,000 words of his letters anything about Christ's birth, Mary, John the Baptist, Pilate, a trial, or any of Christ's miracles.
For all we know, Paul was talking about a mythical Jesus living in a heavenly realm, that was very similar to the other mystery religions of the time that spoke of God(s) existing somewhere other than Earth.
It all comes down to what is more likely, and the evidence is clearly against the supernatural claims of religion.