Do Christians think it is possible to reject their logic/arguments at face value?

[Unveiled Artist]

No, I do.

You asked, "(Is it) in fact possible people can reject Christian claims and arguments because they aren't convinced?"
And I answered "Of course!"

For many reasons, one of which is Jehovah God's standards on sexual morality. Another is CD / ToL evolution.

But if a person takes enough time to learn what the Bible really teaches (about the Earth, what the future holds for mankind, etc.) .....it becomes pretty convincing! And then, in coming to know Jehovah, and by living according to His standards (of morality, etc.), you can actually feel His spirit helping you and guiding you in life! (James 4:8...notice what needs to come first.)

All of this takes time though, and most aren't interested in the investment.

Hockey, like myself for years -practiced, read the bible, intimately involved, loved the faith, and left not because the holy spirit didnt talk to me but I had a reason and truth not to follow it.

Do you think there are reasons to leave without being losed or ignorant to your truth?

Not everyone leaves for negative reasons. Not everyone is ignorant to the holy spirit. Do you believe that?

Edit.

I.e. god didnt reject me. Thats not his nature. I rejected "him" (the idea of him) for The Truth.

 

[james bond]

I suppose one reason is not trusting the motives of Christianity, which is different than trusting the motives of Christians. However, there are so many reasons why one would not accept the truth. The main one, I believe, is that it goes against one's worldview.

It is error proof because of the Bible.

 

[Vouthon]

I've noticed a rather odd thing that some Christians seem to do. They say that people reject their faith because of intolerance, extreme ideologies, because they want to sin, or something like that.

While I don't discount that may in fact happen. There may be people that reject Christianity for certain motives. I find myself having to ask: do Christians think it is possible their reasoning could ever fail to convince somebody?

Does that occur to some of these Christians that make such statements? That it is in fact possible people can reject Christian claims and arguments because they aren't convinced?

Of course.

The Catholic Church recognises that non-believers often hold perfectly valid and defensible reasons for finding the claims of the Christian Revelation unpersuasive, and are therefore not to be considered culpable of wilful disregard for the truth or any allegations of that sort.

The great Spanish priest and theologian Francisco de Vitoria, of the Salamanca School, pointed this out in 1532 A.D:


De Indis De Jure Belli/Part 2 - Wikisource, the free online library

"The pagans in question are not bound, directly the Christian faith is announced to them, to believe it, in such a way that they commit mortal sin by not believing it, merely because it has been declared and announced to them that Christianity is the true religion and that Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of the world, without any other proof or persuasion.

For if before hearing anything of the Christian religion [the pagans] were excused, they are put under no fresh obligation by a simple declaration and announcement of [the gospel], for such announcement is no proof or incentive to belief… Nay…it would be rash and imprudent for any one to believe anything, especially in matters which concern salvation, unless he knows that this is asserted by a man worthy of credence…[therefore] matters of faith are seen and become evident by reason of their credibility. For a believer would not believe unless he saw the things were worthy of belief because of the evidence ” (On the Indians Lately Discovered Section 2 Chapter 10)

​

Pope Paul VI recognized this in relation to atheists:

"...The Church can regard no one as excluded from its motherly embrace, no one as outside the scope of its motherly care. It has no enemies except those who wish to make themselves such. Its catholicity is no idle boast. It was not for nothing that it received its mission to foster love, unity and peace among men...Though We speak firmly and clearly in defence of religion, and of those human, spiritual values which it proclaims and cherishes, Our pastoral solicitude nevertheless prompts Us to probe into the mind of the modern atheist, in an effort to understand the reasons...

They are obviously many and complex, and we must come to a prudent decision about them, and answer them effectively. They sometimes spring from the demand for a more profound and purer presentation of religious truth, and an objection to forms of language and worship which somehow fall short of the ideal. These things we must remedy. We must do all we can to purify them and make them express more adequately the sacred reality of which they are the signs. We see these men serving a demanding and often a noble cause, fired with enthusiasm and idealism, dreaming of justice and progress and striving for a social order which they conceive of as the ultimate of perfection, and all but divine.

This, for them, is the Absolute and the Necessary...Again we see these men taking pains to work out scientific explanation of the universe by human reasoning, and they are often quite ingenuously enthusiastic about this.

It is an enquiry which is all the less reprehensible in that it follows rules of logic very similar to those which are taught in the best schools of philosophy...They are sometimes men of great breadth of mind, impatient with the mediocrity and self-seeking which infects so much of modern society. They are quick to make use of sentiments and expressions found in our Gospel, referring to the brotherhood of man, mutual aid, and human compassion...We do not therefore give up hope of the eventual possibility of a dialogue between these men and the Church..."

- ECCLESIAM SUAM, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI , AUGUST 6, 1964
​

In other words, many atheists are sincere, intelligent and socially conscious people who just don't find the claims made on behalf of religion intellectually persuasive.

Or as the Second Vatican Council's pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (1965) put it:


Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word-Gaudium et Spes

"Atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world...For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion..."

​

The Church here recognizes that, at least to some extent, unbelief arises "through [our] fault, through [our] fault, through [our] most grievous fault", partly because we just aren't making persuasive, credible arguments in favour of religious belief.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hockey, like myself for years -practiced, read the bible, intimately involved, loved the faith, and left not because the holy spirit didnt talk to me but I had a reason and truth not to follow it.

Do you think there are reasons to leave without being losed or ignorant to your truth?

Not everyone leaves for negative reasons. Not everyone is ignorant to the holy spirit. Do you believe that?

Edit.

I.e. god didnt reject me. Thats not his nature. I rejected "him" (the idea of him) for The Truth.

I have a question: were you taught that Hell is where bad people go for eternity, to burn?

 

[Tumah]

Going through the responses in this thread I can't help but feel that a number of them seem to be saying exactly what the OP talks about.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have a question: were you taught that Hell is where bad people go for eternity, to burn?

No. I heard of it a few times in person. Mostly online I read it in detail. Wasnt taught about christianity. It was more so a relationship and devotion to christ more so than reading the bible. When I lived the bible hell had no place. It was more we are growing at different understandings of our faith. There wasnt a reason to think of punishment.

 

[Kenny]

I've noticed a rather odd thing that some Christians seem to do. They say that people reject their faith because of intolerance, extreme ideologies, because they want to sin, or something like that.

While I don't discount that may in fact happen. There may be people that reject Christianity for certain motives. I find myself having to ask: do Christians think it is possible their reasoning could ever fail to convince somebody?

Does that occur to some of these Christians that make such statements? That it is in fact possible people can reject Christian claims and arguments because they aren't convinced?

I suppose there are Christians as you mentioned above as I a sure that there are those who reject Christian claims and agruments because they aren't convinced.

The first time a pastor offered me the life of Jesus, I said "no". Not because I didn't want him, but because I wasn't convinced. I later dismissed him from my house because I was convinced he didn't know what he was talking about.

But when someone answered my questions, my answer was "yes".

 

[Kenny]

I think that's absolutely true, and even more than "not being convinced," I think the nonsense typically spouted by the most vocal Xians actually turns people off and makes them think that they would have to check their brains at the door if they were to become a Xian.

I think that statements like yours can also turn people off. What faith is yours? I want to be sure I check it off as a possibility

 

[Axe Elf]

I think that statements like yours can also turn people off. What faith is yours? I want to be sure I check it off as a possibility

It says "zen Xian" in the box to the upper right. Of course, that's primarily because I abhor pigeonholing (and the pigeons don't like it much, either).

 

[Axe Elf]

I think that statements like yours can also turn people off. What faith is yours? I want to be sure I check it off as a possibility

Actually, my statements were merely a summary of this passage, which was written by a man who shares my faith:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

--from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" by St. Augustine, 401 AD

Ken Ham, white courtesy telephone, please...

 

[Kenny]

Actually, my statements were merely a summary of this passage, which was written by a man who shares my faith:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

--from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" by St. Augustine, 401 AD

Ken Ham, white courtesy telephone, please...

Somehow what he expressed came out so much better than how you did.

 

[sealchan]

I've noticed a rather odd thing that some Christians seem to do. They say that people reject their faith because of intolerance, extreme ideologies, because they want to sin, or something like that.

While I don't discount that may in fact happen. There may be people that reject Christianity for certain motives. I find myself having to ask: do Christians think it is possible their reasoning could ever fail to convince somebody?

Does that occur to some of these Christians that make such statements? That it is in fact possible people can reject Christian claims and arguments because they aren't convinced?

I think that in order to be a Christian you must be deeply compelled to want to cultivate a personal, imaginal relationship with God. This is not a rational understanding, but an irrational one. All truth is not rational. I am a Christian.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Actually, my statements were merely a summary of this passage, which was written by a man who shares my faith:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

--from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" by St. Augustine, 401 AD

Ken Ham, white courtesy telephone, please...

I apply some of his own words to him concerning belief......

And really, concerning action, to all those Christian leaders throughout history who have promoted following "the love of the Christ", but then took part in a conflict where they killed their spiritual brothers, or at least supported such actions!

The early church was corrupted by the State.

 

[Shiranui117]

I've noticed a rather odd thing that some Christians seem to do. They say that people reject their faith because of intolerance, extreme ideologies, because they want to sin, or something like that.

While I don't discount that may in fact happen. There may be people that reject Christianity for certain motives. I find myself having to ask: do Christians think it is possible their reasoning could ever fail to convince somebody?

Does that occur to some of these Christians that make such statements? That it is in fact possible people can reject Christian claims and arguments because they aren't convinced?

A lot of Christians who grew up in sheltered environments where Christianity was all they ever knew would definitely think like this. Me, I came to faith on my own, and as I'm sure many others can attest, my views have wandered a lot, and I've inquired into many different religions. Having discussed and debated faith with people of many different faith backgrounds, I do think it's possible (and even most common) for Christian apologetics to just not be convincing to people, especially to those who grew up with their faith which just seemed like the most normal thing in the world to them. At best, a good explanation of the Christian faith makes it seems more reasonable and respectable. Christians like the ones you describe in the OP generally have a very shallow faith which they haven't really grappled with on a deeper intellectual, emotional or spiritual level before.

Logical arguments never sway anyone to join or leave a religion. Experiencing a faith which speaks a message that resonates with their experience and view of the world is the only thing that can.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

But when someone answered my questions, my answer was "yes".

Do you think the answer would always be yes? If the answer could be no- tell me rather you think that's because a person could find Christianity questionable once explained, or if the person is then being willfully hard-headed.

I am trying to determine if Christians acknowledge or not that a non-believer can reject their premises because they're not convincing.

I think that in order to be a Christian you must be deeply compelled to want to cultivate a personal, imaginal relationship with God. This is not a rational understanding, but an irrational one. All truth is not rational. I am a Christian.

Okay, so I guess you would acknowledge a non-Christian can reject the religion on reason?

 

[Axe Elf]

I was able to get to this a little sooner than I expected. Yay.

Firstly I admire your views on this immensely. You are certainly correct that an omnibenevolent God will not be so exclusive.

However,
1) Can you make a case of the rational plausibility of this mechanism of reconciliation between God and Man?

2) Further, we Hindus believe that there is no fundamental alienation between Man and God in the first place. Hence some universal action on part of God to breach some essential divide is unnecessary. Can you provide a rational justification that shows otherwise?

3) Finally, it takes quite a lot of interpretation to get the non-exclusivist message out of the Bible. Should it not be much clearer?

For example here is a clear statement from Gita

Whoever desires to honor with belief
Whatever worshiped form,
On him I bestow
Immovable faith.

He, who, endowed with this faith,
Desires to propitiate that forn,
Receives from it his desires
Because those desires are decreed
by Me.

Those men who worship, directing
their thoughts to Me,
Whose minds do not go elsewhere;
For them, who are constantly steadfast,
I secure what they lack and preserve
what they already possess.

Even those who worship other gods
With faith,
Also worship Me, Arjuna,
Though they do so in ignorance.
Those who are devoted to the gods go
to the gods;

Those who are devoted to the ancestors
go the the ancestors;
Those who are devoted to the spirits
go to the spirits;
Those who worship Me come surely
to Me.

I am the same (Self) in all beings;
There is none disliked or dear to Me.
But they who worship Me with devotion
Are in Me, and I am also in them.

4) Do you disagree with any of the statements above?
5) If not, can you point to any such clear statements of non-exclusivity in the Bible?

1) First, let me say that I may have misread you when I first replied to this; I thought you were asking if I could make a case for the rational plausibility of why we would need a mechanism of reconciliation between God and man--I can do that. However, in reading it now, I wonder if maybe you were asking if I could make a case for the rational plausibility of the mechanism itself, as in how exactly the sacrifice of Jesus allows us to bridge the gap back into God's presence, to put aside our selfish human nature and take on the divine nature--I can't do that. I really don't understand (yet) how the sacrifice of a man with divine nature allowed men with human nature to share in the divine nature, or even how the blood sacrifice of animals temporarily allowed priests to enter into the presence of God, but that's what we are told.

Hebrews 9 gives us about as much information on the mechanism of redemption through blood sacrifice as we are going to get, but even that is a little unsatisfying to a person of my skepticism and curiosity. But just as I can accept the general principles of quantum mechanics without fully understanding all of the "mechanics" involved, I can understand that Jesus' sacrifice removed the barrier between man and God that only a blood sacrifice could previously bridge. This chapter in Hebrews talks about the construction of the temple, with an outer area in which anyone could go, but an inner area to which only the priests could go, and only with a blood offering to cleanse themselves. At the moment of Jesus' death, the veil that separated the inner area from the outer area was torn completely in two (Matthew 27:51), signifying that any man could now enter into the inner area of the temple, into the presence of God; the Holy of Holies was no longer accessible only to priests cleansed by sacrifice. But WHY and HOW the blood sacrifices allowed priests to enter into the presence of God, or WHY and HOW the sacrifice of Jesus allowed everyone else to enter into the presence of God, I can't tell you.

But now, if you want a rational argument for why there NEEDS to be a mechanism of redemption in the first place, I can do that. I'm going to assume that I don't need to go back to the basic axioms of an omni-God's existence in order to demonstrate that if such a God exists, then the Bible is a legitimate source of spiritual truth about that God--after all, you're already quoting Gita yourself, so holy texts must be considered fair game as resource material.

Ok, so if the Bible can be accepted as a legitimate source of truth about God, then the tales of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden must mean SOMEthing, and likely something pretty important, to start off the whole book with them. We already know that they are not a literal account of the origin of man--we know that there were not two original people named Adam and Eve, created on the sixth day of the existence of the universe, and we know that there was not a physical place called the Garden of Eden that mankind got kicked out of. So what is the significance of this myth?

One rational interpretation is that it sets the stage for the rest of the book by explaining allegorically how man is fundamentally separated from God by his human nature of selfish self-centered self-interest; wanting to be his own god. Wanting to be God Himself is also what got Satan thrown out of heaven in the first place, and that is the temptation Satan provides to A&E; that if they eat the forbidden fruit, then they will become like gods themselves (Genesis 3:4). And that's what causes separation from God to this day--wanting to be our own gods, praying "MY will be done" instead of "THY will be done," and believing we are in control, having free will. I've always been amazed how many Christians will pay lip service to the idea that "God is in control of everything!" but then turn around in vanity and say, "Except ME! I have free will!" Aren't you special.

Some might then consider human nature a design flaw, and question why God made humans with a selfish nature that was incompatible with spending eternity in the presence of God, but I don't see it as a flaw any more than starting out as a caterpillar is a design flaw for butterflies. While we are living in this physical world, we need a nature that is compatible with it--a nature that gives us the best chance of survival--a nature that is concerned with the well-being of the self. But that human nature of selfishness is at odds with the divine nature of love (hate is not the opposite of love; selfishness is), and it is, by necessary design, a mortal nature--humans, like all other creatures, die.

So if God is going to choose certain human beings to hang out with forever, He had to provide a mechanism for exchanging one's mortal human nature for immortal divine nature, and apparently, the sacrifice of the only human to ever have divine nature instead of human nature from the start did the trick. So that is why it is rational that such a mechanism exists, even if I can't rationally explain WHY that mechanism is able to effect its outcome of reconciliation with God.

2) Like I said in my short answer before, I can't PROVE that man was or was not created with a nature that fundamentally separated him from God (just as I can't prove that God exists in the first place), but I can understand how a religion could come about that did not focus on that fundamental separation--since the problem is resolved, was resolved, and always will be resolved through the sacrifice of Jesus. Man CAN enter directly into the Holy of Holies (the presence of God) because of that. So Christianity focuses on how man would be fundamentally separated from God if it wasn't for Jesus allowing us to enter into the presence of God, and Hinduism focuses on already being in the presence of God (at least it sounds that way from your description), and other religions focus on other aspects of understanding God as well (or at least on other interpretations of other experiences of other aspects of God).

(Continued below...)

 

[Axe Elf]

(...Continued from above)

3) On the non-exclusivity of the Biblical message, I started with Jesus' words from John 10:16...

"And I have other sheep [beside these] that are not of this fold. I must bring and impel those also; and they will listen to My voice and heed My call, and so there will be [they will become] one flock under one Shepherd."

...and interpreted it to mean that people of other religions could be saved by virtue of Jesus' sacrifice as well.

There is also a passage in Acts 17 where Paul is in Athens and observes one altar, among all of the Greek idols and altars, with an inscription upon it to the "unknown god" (v. 23), and Paul is like (and I'm paraphrasing several verses here), "Ah, I see you are already worshipping Him, so let me tell you about this God that you do not know yet."

So to me, that's basically suggesting that God accepts worship from other religions, even if they don't have the same name for Him--and if you were to ask the God of the Bible which religion is most true and correct, He would most likely say...

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." --James 1:27 (NIV)

No denominations, no religious figures or founders, no religion in the usual sense at all--just taking care of each other. If that's your religion, God accepts it as pure and faultless.

And while there's the notion in Christianity that you can't get to heaven without acknowledging that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, there's also an awful lot of talk about being judged by what you have done in there as well. I think perhaps the concept that Jesus' sacrifice was indeed the mechanism by which any and all who CAN be saved ARE saved became conflated with the idea that salvation is anything other than the sole choice of God, and that what you DO is a better reflection of your salvation status than what you BELIEVE.

This is reflected in stories about good fruit from good trees in Matthew 7 and the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, as well as the account of final judgment in Revelation 20.

"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." --Matthew 7:18-20 (NIV)

You shall know God's people by their fruits--not by what they believe, but by what they do. It continues...

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" --Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)

So it's not enough to believe in God or even to call Jesus "Lord." Salvation may have only been made possible by Jesus' sacrifice, and there may indeed be no other way into the presence of God--but just believing that is not enough to be saved. You are saved by loving God and loving each other, which fulfills the entire Law (Matthew 22:34-40), but you were only able to be saved in the first place because Jesus provided a bridge back to God (whether you realize that this is why you are able to be in God's presence or not).

Moving on to the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-45 (NIV)...

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

So here we have all the nations being judged--not just the Christians, but everyone--on the basis of what they did and didn't DO. Not a single question about what they believed--even those who thought they were "believers" were judged by nothing other than whether or not their actions followed the pure and faultless religion of love.

And again in Revelation 20:12-13, the judgment of all the dead is said to be on the basis of their actions and intentions, not about their acknowledgment of Jesus or any other "religious" belief.

"I [also] saw the dead, great and small; they stood before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is [the Book] of Life. And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done [their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors] in accordance with what was recorded in the books. And the sea delivered up the dead who were in it, death and Hades (the state of death or disembodied existence) surrendered the dead in them, and all were tried and their cases determined by what they had done [according to their motives, aims, and works]." (Amplified Bible)

So I don't know what else you're looking for to suggest a universal sense of inclusion of other beliefs in the Bible, but I think there's plenty of room for that interpretation.

4) and 5) I think I've answered already.

 

[Axe Elf]

There's a few things I find problematic about the Christian claim though. The first being the most common you probably hear. That if God had really wanted humans in relation with him, he could have made it from the start that they wouldn't fall, or ever have need of him to become human. Take that with the fact that God is supposedly all-knowing and such, it starts to seem like he had this planned all along no matter what. In other words: he created the problem for him to solve.

That's true, but also kind of a trivial observation. Every problem that goes along with creating a physical universe was a problem that God created for Him to solve. One of those problems was how to create man in a way that he would be compatible with a physical universe for the limited time he would spend in it, and then be able to become compatible with a spiritual eternity in the presence of God. (If you read my previous post, to sayak83, I explain this in a little more detail.) I don't think it's obvious at all that God could have done ANYTHING different in creating the universe in general or man specifically that would make Creation any better, and in fact if the omni-God exists, we know that we already live in the best of all possible universes.

So God created us with a temporary human nature necessary to survival on Earth, and access to an eternal divine nature through the bridge of Jesus necessary to eternal life in the presence of God. It's no more of a design flaw than caterpillars are a design flaw for butterflies. But not all the caterpillars get to become butterflies. Some are merely to feed the birds, so to speak.

The claim is that he cursed people at the fall, which only Christians believe to begin with- not Jews.

That he cursed people though makes it seem hard to accept he's benevolent for wanting to remove it now. It more sounds like he wants people to have need of him and couldn't imagine if they didn't.

With the understanding that both human nature and divine nature are necessary to our survival in the physical world and in the presence of God, respectively, it's hard to understand human nature as a "curse." It's just how we have to be to survive in this world, it's not a drawback, it's just the baseline for human existence, and some are blessed with the opportunity for more. God doesn't "curse" us or handicap us in any way, to take anything away from our human nature, but He can add His divine nature to it.

Also, the idea Christians have about God becoming man are not only unlikely- they're impossible.

It's one thing to accept the unlikely on faith, but to accept things that are so glaringly contradictory they couldn't be true comes off as not wise to me. The Christian view of hypostatic union is impossible because it's a contradiction in terms.

The way Christians suggest Jesus can be god and man at once is the same as suggesting water and dirt can be in one vessel and not become half and half. Do you see what I'm getting at?

There seems to be nothing inherently impossible about a god or gods incarnating themselves as men (or women), and a lot of religions believe that this has happened in one way or another. Perhaps the way you understand it doesn't seem possible to you, but there is no logical basis for declaring it impossible.

I don't really like your mudpie analogy, but consider that you can fill a container completely full to the rim with dirt, but still add a considerable amount of water to it. But for me, Jesus being both God and man has more to do with Him NEVER having a human nature that fundamentally separated Him from God; he was a man that never had anything other than divine nature, and lived constantly in the presence of God (until man's collective sin--human nature--was suddenly dumped on Him on the cross, and for the first time He felt the separation from God--"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"). I would say that a better analogy is that Jesus, like all men, was made of both dirt AND water, but He was made with purified water, and everyone else was made with tap water.

Yes, and that view is a better one than the exclusionary view, but I'm not sure how much it argues for Christianity's being true.

As I have always stated, I cannot and will not argue for Christianity being true, or even for the existence of God being actual--I do not think it is my place to convince anyone that God is real (if He wants to reveal Himself to you, He will), or that one religion is better than any other. But Christianity CAN be understood rationally, and that is always my goal. Whether you agree with my beliefs or not, I try to follow 1 Peter 3:15b (Amplified Bible)...

"Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully."

 

[Axe Elf]

Reasoning fails every time in true matters of faith.

I try not to let reason cloud my judgement.

"Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully." --1 Peter 3:15b (Amplified Bible)

 

[Kenny]

Do you think the answer would always be yes? If the answer could be no- tell me rather you think that's because a person could find Christianity questionable once explained, or if the person is then being willfully hard-headed.

I am trying to determine if Christians acknowledge or not that a non-believer can reject their premises because they're not convincing.



Okay, so I guess you would acknowledge a non-Christian can reject the religion on reason?

Absolutely!! There were some Pharisees who rejected Jesus on reason as well as many other reasons. Obviously to use reason would mean never to have an excperience to walk on water. Probably the other 11 rejected the offer on the grounds of reason.