I agree. But heaven is not like that at all. I don't know what it's like. Hell is not what is described by mainstream catholicism or christianity.

Hell is bad based on the simple fact that you know there was a chance that you could have abandoned your life on earth for a faith (belief in christianity) and receive an infinitely better outcome. That is real torture, knowing what could have.

Bear in mind, even if there is no hell, the Christian God is still vain, evil, and with a toddler's intellect. I can think of many things to condition salvation on, and whether you can solve a puzzle with very few clues is not a good one.

So i'd find the thing offensive if any significant aspect of this is true.

Pics please.

i'd have to wonder how someone would know what both heaven and hell are like exactly, because there's no way you've been to both.

does not compute

The problem is, a lot of Christians don't really seem to have something that could be missed. There's a lot of Christians who just have a lot of really poor arguments and "faith".

It'd be likely that somebody, somewhere out there saw something that we didn't, which started off the whole chain of Christianity, but the Christian masses were also mostly oblivious to this thing, and were simply lucky to be born into their parents correct religion.

Then again, there are lots of Christians who "just know". Maybe we'd have faulty brains missing this mysterious god detecting part.

are there any christians on this board that will claim that personal revelation/experience is not a major component of their belief in Christianity? Meaning, they would not believe in Christianity (or have major doubts) without this personal experience? I believe Jibs once made this claim, but I won't put words into his mouth.

If this is the case, then its very likely the "thing" that is missed is that personal revelation/experience (as to whose fault that is ... ill leave as an exercise to the reader). Without, faith in Christianity is ~equally as justifiable as faith in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, etc.

people don't seem to understand what i am saying.

it is so far fetched that christianity is correct, that if it is, the bolded part above would have to be out the window. the arguments certainly do seem poor, and evidence certainly does seem scant, but if its all true, then things aren't the way they seem. (atleast not to me.)

Again, though, given the scarcity of the evidence, wouldn't that just mean that God is some sort of sadistic science experimenter who wanted to see if the rats made it to the cheese at the end of the gigantic maze?

That's one of the weirdest things about Christianity. Why would any creator / ruler of the universe play hide-and-seek with believers and then reward only those who flatter Her vanity? And then the believers have the gall to label such an absolute monster "good" and "all-loving"!

this is one of the reasons that I feel very skeptical of any personal feeling.

Pretty much what bladesman said. Well, not "pretty much", more like "exactly".

OP, come on, no sneaky Pascal's wager variants, or elements thereof.

lol Hardball made a funny

(Grunching) Someone had to say it.

My first response would be because of luck,
but thinking it more, if God DOES exist,
didnt he intentionally create me (or let me be born) in a specific country/continent and in a specific family and in a specific time/period where i would be exposed to the teachings he wants me to hear?
and then he would know beforehand i would reject them because the lack of evidence.

It just messes with my head, and im not even factoring in all the people who lived/died and werent exposed to a monotheistic religion like mayas, aztec, etc, either they are really unlucky or GOD wanted them in hell from the beginning.

I think there was a tale in sunday school about a man that wouldnt give money to a poor diseased begger on the street under the rain, it turns out he dies and goes to judgement and jesus tells him that the begger was him (jesus christ himself!), and because he denied the begger help he will deny him in judgement, seriously.. WTF?! how is the man supposed to know? How are we supposed to know?

Is there a single civilized country where there is a law that would punish you with death for denying something??

What is the use of such a plan/game and played it out that way for mankind?, i prefer doubt to certainty in this matter.

This would be my reaction:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

this is a logical fallacy. Christianity could be true with there being no evidence in nature. And the idea that people are choosing to believe has been discussed ad naseum and seems wrong.

I know I've challenged many people who argue that choice is a belief to choose to believe something they don't and live accordingly. Takers who have succeeded: zero.

Can Christianity be true and the bible be false?

You are still avoiding the issue I raised earlier. If Christianity is true (your belief, correct?), are you really saying that every word of the Bible is thus literally true? If not, then your argument is negated. If yes, then "wow".

You can't pick and choose which one or two particular verses are "true" if Christianity is true, and ignore the dozens of others that you admit are not literal truths.

This is what you have to do when you hold an indefensible postion.

Christianity can be true and parts of the bible false, including the part where there is evidence of the Christian God in nature (i dont even think the bible says this, all it says is that there is evidence of a "creator god" in nature).

Yes. This is what I was trying to avoid by specifying 'the general idea of Christianity.' Jesus' claims do not have to be false if the rest of the Bible is. In addition, the Bible could be true but there could be no reason to believe it.

Neither? I am an atheist because of a lack of compelling evidence for God or a god. I am a soft atheist because of a lack of compelling evidence disproving the existence of a god. Theists claim a wide variety of reasons for their beliefs. Depending on those reasons and the evidence I have seen - either possibility of yours could be true or false.

Many believe because of some form of personal revelation. I have never experienced such a thing. If those believers are right, it doesn't mean they got lucky accepting something they shouldn't have, nor does it mean they saw something I missed - and here I take missed to mean something I saw but missed the significance of - and not something I missed because it was never revealed to me.

It is possible that a believer's personal revelation was false, and they believed its implications in error - luckily. It is possible that such a revelation has been made to me - and I was mistaken about its meaning. But I have no basis to order those probabilities.

If someone believes in God, I cannot say that belief is wrong - though in many cases I can disagree with the evidence for that belief. If someone believes in Christianity based on the Bible - I disagree with that belief. If Christianity turns out to be true, I wouldn't say that the believer got lucky or that I missed something - we simply disagree about the significance of certain evidence. However, if someone believes in God because why else would the sun and planets and stars revolve around the Earth - then if Christianity turns out to be true, their belief would be sheer luck.

I believe most Christians have multiple reasons for believing - and I assume their is a good reason in there somewhere. So barring a revelation at judgement about what I missed - neither would appear more likely to me.

For the bible to be false (in certain parts) and the new testament to be the true part, meaning that Jesus is the son of God and he was divine and all, he is relying on a book with part lies (inserted by men i assume) and part truths to spread his gospel which would be the ONLY way of saving mankind, nobody would know about Jesus divinity without the gospels, but God must have known they would be attached to some make believe stories which would be false and thus people would be wary of believing or rejecting belief in the book all together.

So either God knew the bible would be tampered and let it happen that way or God couldnt stop the bible from being modified with lies by men (insert Satan here). Which of these two is worse? i cant decide.

Well, there are other ways it could have potentially happened. But which is 'worse' really is not the issue. The issue is that they are both possible.