On Non-belief

[Tex]

Should the child's faith in his parents extend to believing them if they tell him he shouldn't touch the stove because at night it turns into a child-eating lion that will devour sleeping children who have touched it during the day?

Because the child of your example is only showing faith that his parents are truthful and that they are in a position to know if it's safe to touch the stove. I trust my Aunt Matilda, and I wouldn't touch a stove if she warned me against it. If she told me the man across the street is having an affair with an Italian countess, I might ask how she knows the woman is a countess. But if she told me there are four dogs playing poker in a special habitat on Venus, I'd worry about her mental health, because even if it were true, she would have no way of knowing it.

You're not just claiming a stove is hot, you're claiming to know the origin of the universe is a who, and to know what that who likes and wants. Even if it were actually true, I don't believe you're in a position to know it, and all you have to offer in support of your truthfulness is 'trust me'.

Regardless what the parents say, the child can still place faith in them. Now, if the child investigates and realizes that a stove does not turn into a child-eating monster, the rationality wins, and the faith is no longer total. This doesn't make the parents completely untrustable, but a child may think so for a time. After maturing, the child probably understands that the parents were lying, but they really didn't want him to touch the stove. Even further down the line, he will laugh at himself for believing it in the first place. Then he'll probably tell his kids the same story at a similar age.

So, if God said, "don't do X or I'll make the ground swallow you", and then someone does X, and the ground doesn't swallow them, I would no longer trust God like I do. However, if everything God said had happened just as told, I have reason to place faith in him. Faith is not supposed to be unreasonable, and God himself uses his past actions to inspire trust.

Well? Don't just claim it. Explain the "backing" and "logic" of your religion to me, and explain how the Quoran is known to be incorrect.

That would take a book. However, I still have the impression that you like things short, so I'll try to keep it that way.

Backing - history of Jews starting in Egypt and continuing until Roman absorption + Jesus' fulfillment of various prophesies, sacrificial laws, and new covenant + extra biblical accounts verifying major historical events/people (Babylonian captivity, Hittites, Persia, Celsus, Tacitus, etc.)

Logic - starting in pagan Greece, logic continued into Christianity without issues. Hyliomorphic substance of Aristotle, monotheism, etc.. Aristotle later is revisited by Aquinas in the 13th century, only varying slightly from Aristotle's positions (in Aristotle, God is only concerned with his own perfection, no resurrection, etc.)

Quran - Writings start with Mohammed, claims made against Jews and Christians are unverifiable, and those that can be verified are proved wrong (we have Christian texts from before 600 AD that say the opposite of what Mohammed says they say). The book itself was revealed only to Mohammed rather than the entire city (compare with the plagues in Exodus). Logic is DCT morality and lack a trinity (necessary if God is to be perfect). To be honest, this is the ancient form of Mormonism.

No, because the less obvious Christianity is, the less amount of people that will believe in it.

Saying "we have to work for it" doesn't cut it for anyone who was unfortunate enough to never come across Christianity and its claims.

As I have already made very clear, you don't need to hear about Christianity's claims to be saved by Christ. An embryo can be saved. In fact, you can think Christianity is a lie and still be saved by Christ. Neither of these are "exceptions to the rule" either.

And the ones that never got an opportunity? They're in hell and they wouldn't have the slightest clue why.

Again, all have the opportunity and knowledge is not the opportunity.

We're talking knowledge about God's truths here... I fail to see how the more you get to know about it, the more you'll turn away. It's in everyone's interest to go to heaven.

Why should I put faith into a god that didn't bother making it clear it's the real god? That's the entire problem here... it isn't obvious that Christianity is true.

It's in everyone's interest to go to heaven, yes. However, "I want to go to heaven" does not mean "I love God". Many people follow the law in China. That doesn't mean they support the government. The whole "knowledge can possibly harm" thing actually applies to you. You don't trust Christianity because you must verify all of its claims. However none of those verifications actually save you. In fact, even if every claim by some denomination was sound, that doesn't mean that they are actually right! You can't start by examining the more complex scenarios first, you have to start at the root: is there a god? You've already answered yes, so next is "what is God like?"

If I simply need to be "good" and not have to believe anything to go to heaven, then why does the Bible exist? Why did Jesus die a pointless death if it isn't necessary for anyone to believe he did it for humanity? You might as well be a Deist.

Not "simply need to be 'good'", but need to revere the good. This reverence is the belief. The Bible exists to give us information we would not have otherwise, such as the redemption of sin to make up for our own moral faults or resurrection. Belief only saves because of what Jesus did, otherwise we would all have the same common fate: death.

And, I used to be Deist. It was brief, but I thought, "Why would God concern himself with us?" and then later, "Why would God create us in the first place if we weren't important?"