Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[SteveII]

Even with all the additional connotations, faith never means belief in God with no evidence.

My criticisms are not about belief in a god, but about Christianity in particular. Deists don't claim you will burn in hell for not believing in a deity, Christians do claim you risk hell for not believing in the gospel. I never said faith means belief without evidence, I said faith means belief beyond the evidence; meaning that even if there is some limited foundation to make an argument (some evidence rather than none), the supporting evidence does not necessarily imply the conclusion. For example, Christians have faith that the resurrection occurred based on the empty tomb and the rest of the events described in the gospel accounts. Well, from my point of view if we are wondering whether a certain man came back from the dead, does the fact that these particular accounts of uncertain authorship and veracity say it happened serve as sufficient evidence to convince me? No, it's not sufficient to me, and yet under Christianity, the fact that I'm not convinced of this is reckoned as a moral failure on my part. That because I'm not convinced of this story and reject it I deserve to suffer forever in the afterlife? It's ludicrous to me, and I find it silly that a god depicted as kind and merciful would be so arbitrary in judging the children he allegedly loves based on this.

You keep equating the term "moral failure" with disbelief. They are not the same. If you disbelieve, the "church" and other Christian just think you are wrong--not a moral failure.  Perhaps you think using the term adds weight to your objection. A person deserves to be eternally separated from God for rejecting him when given the opportunity.  Rejecting an eternal God has eternal consequences for an immortal soul--I don't think that is as big of a philosophical leap as you think.