Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Neo-Scholastic]

…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…Christians have faith that the resurrection occurred based on the empty tomb and the rest of the events described in the gospel accounts… 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.

As far as I can tell from the canonical texts, other options are still on the table. I believe Scripture is indeterminate about the afterlife – eternal conscious torment, annihilation, and universalism. I have read major theologians, all of whom I respect, that disagree on our ultimate fate. They do, however, all agree that torment and anguish are the consequences of sin, not just in the hereafter, but in the here and now.

As an analogy, fish are made to live happily in the water, but if some rebellious fish jumps onto the dock, his suffocation and flailing are direct consequences of his actions. Likewise, suppose a man pursues a life contrary to the moral grain of creation and commits himself to it even though it hurts him and those around him. Is it right or proper to blame the Creator when the man rejects the feast of permitted pleasures that Creator set before him?

The question I would ask you, and all nominal believers, is this: has the work of the Redeemer prompted you to repentance leading to regeneration – not later but today, right now. Has your current suffering ceased to be meaningless? The gospel isn’t just about a paradise you can only enjoy later. It is about the joy you can have now by participating in His mission even if that means involves trials, temptations, and tribulations. So I would say, stop worrying about a dire future and focus on your life as it is today and ask yourself if your life would be better off for embracing the Gospel.

Now many people think not, especially those raised in repressive churches. In that environment, the rules and demands and judgments and guilt are immediately apparent. Those churches have crushed the life out of the Gospel. I’m not going to try to sell you on the superiority of a life led in obedience to Christ. That’s up to you. As for me, I only have to watch a couple of Judge Judy episodes to witness all the unnecessary and pointless strife people get themselves into. Wouldn’t their lives be so much easier if they controlled their impulses for easy gain and illicit pleasures? Now of course they could conceivably do so without the guidance of divine principles (a whole nuther issue). But what about when they are innocent and on the receiving end? Where can they turn when the justice of the world has failed them?
There is a good case to be made that intellectual assent to the existence of God and the truth of the Gospels isn’t enough. As the cliché says, even Satan and his demons believe in God. Faith isn’t an intellectual belief that some philosophical claim is valid. Faith is about living the truth in which you believe. Orthodoxy is important but orthopraxy is critical.

Not exactly. I think the claim of atheists that there are so many different gods is simply wrong. With respect to the Divine Attributes that come from general revelation, I cannot find any substantial differences between the De Fide of the Catholic Church and the Westminster Confession of the Reformed Church. The statements of faith of most mainline churches, despite minor doctrinal differences, read the same with respect to the attributes of God

I completely agree, which is why I think the argument that centers around equating disbelief in the God of classical theism with gods Thor or Zeus a bad argument because Thor and Zeus aren't gods in the sense classical theists use the word. These gods of ancient myth are basically superheroes, they're just really powerful versions of humans and don't really have anything in common with the god of classical theism other than the three letter title.

Please, please, could you try to get that point across to some other AF members. They are really making asses out of themselves by comparing God to Thor, unicorns or the tooth fairy.

…believers tell you that things will only start to make sense to you when you allow yourself to believe and act as if their religion is true from the start…when I brought up the case of Islam, I was merely trying to illustrate that another religion besides Christianity demands you have faith in it, and uses faith as a basis for belief. Both Islam and Christianity hold that people have a moral obligation to embrace their faith, that's the essential point. So when you have two competing belief systems (Islam and Christianity) that both demand you have faith in it, and that faith serve as a basis for belief, how are you supposed to determine which (if any) is true

Indeed that has been what I have been advocating above. To answer the question, I say you must look at what each religion promises. Both teach a kind of obedience but there appear to be important differences (again I am not an expert). Islam teaches obedience to God through specific and seemingly culture specific rules. Christianity teaches obedience to the person of Jesus Christ by means of His example. Unlike Christianity, Islam does not appear to have a means to redeem our suffering. There seem to be other differences. That said, people overwhelmingly select the dominant religion of their culture. Personally, I am very ecumenical. I am not so quick to dismiss the positive role Islam (or Hinduism or Bhai or any other religion) may have in the lives of its adherents. I believe God meets us where we are and in the end responds to what we ask of Him.