Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[SteveII]

There's a lot of debate nowadays between Christians and skeptics over whether faith is a good or rational basis for belief and it seems that generally speaking Christians today (more so than in the past) are so timid to the point of just wanting to have the foundation of faith tolerated as a basis for belief and not mocked. [1]

To me the peculiar thing about this is that up until very recently Christianity was saturated in an arrogance that still exists, but is not nearly articulated as much as it used to be, and this arrogance is basically that it is not only reasonable to have faith in their religion, but that we have a moral obligation to have faith in their religion. [2]

It would be one thing to say: "I know we can't really prove the truth of our religion and that it requires faith, but if you simply aren't convinced of Christianity, it won't be held against you, no harm no foul". In reality however the Christian message is essentially this: "You owe us your belief, you owe it to us to have faith in our religion in all of its aspects and obey it in every respect it demands obedience in; if you fail to fulfill this moral obligation you will suffer unimaginable horrors for all eternity." [3]

Christians still believe this today but often try to camouflage this fundamental arrogance in Christianity by appealing to pluralistic ideals, saying you don't have to believe if you don't want to and can believe or disbelieve what you like (leaving out the part that God is apparently so offended by this unbelief that you will be tormented for eternity). [4]

Coming to this realization was one of the biggest moments in my de-conversion process as I actually started getting quite angry at the thought that I was being needlessly controlled by a Church that impressed upon me from childhood the idea that I owed them everything. The onus was on me to give the Church my faith, and my obedience in all things they demanded, and to surrender my future and all it would entail, even to the extent of surrendering my own future children by handing them over to the rites and indoctrination of the Church, repeating the process over again in a new generation. [5]

Ultimately, when one is trapped in such a web of religious arrogance, it is a revolutionary act simply to say: no, the onus is not on me to have faith in what you say and I don't owe you my belief. The onus is on you to provide reasons for belief that justify the extraordinary claims and demands your religion places on people. [6]

1. I think you are misusing the word 'faith'. Faith is having confidence in something, and in this context, confidence that God is/will _____. So, how could a confidence in God be the rational basis for belief in God? Perhaps you mean someone's belief about God. But if that is the case, the sentence is circular: a persons belief in God is a rational basis for belief in God. I think most people have tangible reasons for their belief. 

2. If you believe Christianity to be true, that entails believing that Christianity is the only path to God. Following that train of logic, how does that equate to 'arrogance'?

3. "You owe us your belief". Who is the 'us'? You owe God and no one else. Seems to be you have substituted a particular church for God. So, to reword your sentence with the proper perspective: You owe God your belief, you owe it to God to have faith in his message and obey it in every respect it demands obedience in;  if you fail to fulfill this moral obligation, you will suffer unimaginable horrors for all eternity. See, that's much closer to the teachings of Christianity. 

4. Espousing some sort of pluralistic concept about approaching God is entirely irrational. A worldview that teaches that is a house of cards and easily brought down.

5. Again, substituting a particular church for God. Objecting to the attitudes and demands of an organization run by men in no way reflects on the truthfulness of the NT message.

6. What extraordinary demands does the NT gospel message place on people?