I posted the following in reply to R. L. Solberg's comments about his debate with Rabbi Tovia Singer: See here:
I don't understand why you find Jesus' resurrection significant. I can tell from modern Christianity and from the NT that if I become interested in Jesus, there is a greater than 51% chance that I will get suckered into a "cult". Doesn't it make more sense for skeptics to limit their sins to just the sin of unbelief, and to avoid adding "heresy" to their account?
Sure, you can say God will surely reveal doctrinal truth to his sincere followers, but that logically requires a presupposition that all Christians who end up interpreting the bible differently than you do, were therefore not sincere.
If you refuse to say most of today's Christians are insincere, then how DO you explain the fact that millions of equally sincere seekers of Christ disagree on how to interpret a bible verse?
In other words, how do YOU explain the fact that another Christian who is equally as sincere and saved as you, disagrees with your interpretation of a bible verse?
You won't like the hypothesis that God has different strokes for different folks, but aside from that, I'm not seeing what's so unreasonable with that hypothesis. If you reject it, it would seem you are forced to either admit God may want certain sincere Christ-seekers to interpret the bible incorrectly....or you are forced to insist that those Christ seekers who adopt what you consider to be "heresy" were never sincere toward God in the first place.
The last hypothesis makes sense enough, but it's also horrifically bigoted and makes your own interpretations of the bible a judge on whether some other Christ-seeker is sincere or insincere.
Can skeptics be reasonable to conclude that after 2,000 years, the NT's message is locked in fatal ambiguity, a thing that would justify today's skeptic to characterize the whole business as unprofitably convoluted and not worth one's time in taking seriously?
