Ah, but my argument is that a belief in the Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, ect, concept of God would feel no different to a belief in the Christian concept of God.
Yes, I understand. I disagree.
Can you provide evidence for that?
No, I don't think so. A muslim's anecdotal testimony of their religious experience might well sound to an objective listener, very much like my anecdotal testimony of my life as a Christian.
But below you say that God has given us evidence of His nature, and if we have an attitude of humility before God, we will eventually come to recognize the truth. Is there evidence and objectivity or not?
There isn't evidence that would satisfy your standard of evidence; it is not evidence that proves the existence of God, which is what you seem to be wanting. If the existence of God were a matter of proof, it would not be a matter of faith to believe in Him.
You’re starting to sound like Tuor now.
Not the poster I would most care to emulate. I'm sorry, I'm giving you the best answers I know how to give.
If there is no objective argument to make me believe that one religion is correct over the other, then salvation is left to chance.
Salvation is left to God, and to you, in your response to Him (IMO).
I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving God leaving salvation to chance.
Nor can I. I'm afraid I'm not quite connecting with you on this idea of salvation as a matter of chance. I feel confident that every human being will be given a chance to respond to the grace of God and be saved.
What is the evidence of his nature and why do 75% of the world’s people not see it?
My understanding of this evidence, based on verses from Romans and the Psalms, is that the creation declares the glory of God, and that a humble attitude allows us to apprehend the presence and nature of God in the world around us.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because what may be known of God is evident among them, for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom. 1:18-21
When we continue in a humble awareness of God, we are receptive to His truth, in whatever way it may be brought into our lives. Going back to the idea presented in the Narnia passage, this would mean that a heart attitude of salvation is possible even if a person has not heard the message of salvation through faith in Jesus, and is outwardly worshipping a false god. So if that is correct, then it isn't necessarily 75% of humanity that hasn't seen the evidence of God.
But could you stop believing in the Christian concept of God and immediately change to the Hindu concept of God?
I could make the same choice to stop believing, that I made to believe. This would not be like brainwashing, but would be in the nature of a willful turning away from something I had previously embraced. Something like, perhaps, you having a change of heart about a person you once admired, but now think badly of and choose not to associate with.
The problem is that you're saying he didn't want an essentially compulsory choice brought about by an internal predisposition.
If we were pre-disposed to obey (like being pre-disposed to be attracted to females), obedience wouldn't be an occasion for choice at all, it would be our natural inclination.
But what he's given instead is much worse - an external compulsion presented by the choice of eternal paradise or eternal damnation.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying, we are presented with a choice, like either taking an apple from the table, or from the flames, and the nature of the choice (one option being far more attractive than the other) compels us to choose the more attractive option? And what is the problem you have with that? Is it the fact of having to choose at all, that you object to? Or is it the fact that both options are not equally attractive, and so we are less free, if you will, to choose to burn in hell (or to take the apple from the flames)?
This is much like the non-choice you presented with the apple, except it's our souls being tossed in the fire. It's as much a non-choice to love God as it is which of the two apples you eat.
So we are forced to love God in order to avoid eternal torment, and you feel that 'forced' love is not true love?
The problem with this concept is that obedience is a matter of choice, where we don't tend to think of love as a matter of choice. I think it would be more useful to think in terms of acknowledgment. For example, you acknowledge the authority of a judge by showing him the proper respect, or you get cited for contempt (or removed from the court).
So thinking in those terms, does that cause you the same difficulty? Is it similarly a non-choice, to show respect to a judge, and if so, does that idea bother you in the same way?
You can try, but effort is somehow not to the point, is it?
Ha! It's really quite like what Yoda said, isn't it (about doing, rather than trying to do -- I forget the exact quote).
I don't think you can try to feel something. I mean, how would you go about trying to feel something? I don't think we can. I don't think we can try to believe something, either. There is no mechanism to make the effort.
Unlike love, which we tend to associate to a large extent with feelings, belief is not based on feelings. Belief is based in action (obedience), which springs from attitude (trust and respect). I think some self-help guru has said, 'we do what we believe.' I believe this is so. We can tell what we believe, by examining what we do.
I think wanting is possible, though, with both belief and love. There is an interesting and curious (to me) Bible verse that seems as though it should be the opposite: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
If you want to believe something (or love someone for whom you lack certain motivational feelings), you can choose to act as though you believe (or love). I don't mean, pretending feelings. I mean, in the case of belief, you can choose to be obedient (go to church, for example), and in the case of love, you can choose to show love through action (caring for someone who is sick, for example), even if you don't necessarily feel an accompanying personal affection, or an accompanying personal conviction. I think doing this, is like doing what that verse says. Those actions done, that time and energy invested, without accompanying feeling but from a desire to do what is right, are like the laying up of treasure; eventually your heart will be there also.
Whatever we feel towards him, he is responsible for in some way. Making a certain person prefer heterosexual sex or chocolate over vanilla doesn't seem like it's usually described as interfering with the person's will.
I would agree. And Wolfie's idea of free will seems to be that a person preferring vanilla, can choose chocolate even though it isn't what they like. I think the free will comes in deciding how you deal with your preference for vanilla ice cream. Do you gorge yourself on it, avoid it entirely for health reasons, or something in between.
It seems like it's only got to do with free will in this case because God really really wants to be loved while believing that love is forced in any way.
I think you're describing the problems people have with the ideas they come up with, about what God wants. If God wants companionship, then He has to somehow change created beings who all eventually choose to disobey (as a function of free will) and therefore fall out of companionship with Him, into beings that are once again able to have relationship with a supreme and perfect being.
I mean, he creates us and gives us our preferences, but then thinks the love isn't good enough because we're just following orders, so we have to be not naturally inclined to love him, but that's got to be punished.
I think it clouds the issue, to talk about love, which we associate with feelings. The choice to obey or disobey (which involves the issues of trust and respect) is a free choice (an exercise of free will), in the same way that our choice of how to deal with a preference for vanilla ice cream, is a free choice (an exercise of free will). It is part of what makes us human beings, that we exercise this type of will in making decisions. If everything were pre-programmed, we would cease to be human, as we understand the concept.
It seems to me there's only one way God would get the kind of love that's being described here, and that's to do it exactly as people do it: find a person whose will and preferences you didn't create, let them get to know you, and then take your chances.
And of course (even if that were an accurate description of what is at issue), there is no such person to be found, since God created all persons and things.