Is Belief a Moral Construct?

[cvanwey]

In the pages of the Bible, God looks to deem belief under the umbrella of morality, verse instead under the cloak of amorality. When we read such a passage...:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

God's judgement looks to hinge upon whether or not one believes in Him, and then acts accordingly. However, if belief is NOT a choice, or cannot be willed, then belief may not constitute a moral or immoral action.

- If belief is a moral action, please state your case?
- However, if belief is not a moral action, and is instead an amoral action, then why does this look be God's criteria for condemnation?

 

[Rachel20]

I'm only going to post one comment because I know we've already debated this indirectly. The reason I personally don't consider belief in Christ itself a moral construct is because it's "accounted" to us as righteousness (Galatians 3:6). If it were, in itself, a moral action, I see no need for a reckoning. Something else is going on with it imo

 

[cvanwey]

I'm only going to post one comment because I know we've already debated this indirectly. The reason I personally don't consider belief in Christ itself a moral construct is because it's "accounted" to us as righteousness (Galatians 3:6). If it were, in itself, a moral action, I see no need for a reckoning. Something else is going on with it imo

We may be speaking past one another here? The cited passage, (Mark 16:15-16), essentially speaks about proselytism. He tells some to tell others. If these recipients believe what is being preached, and then act in accordance in some approved upon way, they will not be condemned apparently.

However, it's not even yet a question of whether or not Christianity's moral prescriptions themselves are 'moral' or 'immoral'. The question is posed about the belief of whether or not Christianity itself is even true. i.e. A Man DID rise from the grave.

As we discussed elsewhere... You tell someone that Jesus resurrected from the dead to save you. The recipient is not yet even concerned with whether or not such an action is deemed (moral/immoral), but instead does not believe a Man rose from the grave, period.

If one cannot will a belief, and/or belief is not a choice, and one does not believe a Man rose from the dead, then the rest there-after is just 'white noise' to even discuss.

 

[Monksailor]

Before ANY preaching is given the Lord, through circumstances and the Holy Spirit, works upon an individual and prepares them. They become enlightened of things of which only God could reveal and when His Word is presented at the right time their eyes are opened to the Truth, Way, and Life.

This type of "belief" is not one exclusive of the other of the two choices which you offer. It is a combination worked only within the construct and comprehension of God; both wills, yet, one.

 

[zippy2006]

In the pages of the Bible, God looks to deem belief under the umbrella of morality, verse instead under the cloak of amorality. When we read such a passage...:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

God's judgement looks to hinge upon whether or not one believes in Him, and then acts accordingly. However, if belief is NOT a choice, or cannot be willed, then belief may not constitute a moral or immoral action.

- If belief is a moral action, please state your case?
- However, if belief is not a moral action, and is instead an amoral action, then why does this look be God's criteria for condemnation?

Let me rephrase your argument more precisely with less problematic language:

1. All actions for which we can be punished or rewarded are voluntary actions.
2. God punishes and rewards belief.
3. Therefore, belief is a voluntary action.

4. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5. We do not choose what to believe.
6. Therefore, belief is not a voluntary action.​

Cvanwey accepts (4-6) and therefore concludes that it makes no sense for God to punish and reward beliefs, which are involuntary actions.

 

[cvanwey]

Let me rephrase your argument more precisely with less problematic language:

1. All actions for which we can be punished or rewarded are voluntary actions.
2. God punishes and rewards belief.
3. Therefore, belief is a voluntary action.

4. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5. We do not choose what to believe.
6. Therefore, belief is not a voluntary action.​

Cvanwey accepts (4-6) and therefore concludes that it makes no sense for God to punish and reward beliefs, which are involuntary actions.

I won't quibble here, but it still presents the same fundamental message

Do you disagree with this conclusion? If so, why?

 

[zippy2006]

I won't quibble here, but it still presents the same fundamental message

Not for the many Protestants who do not understand salvation in "moral" terms.

Do you disagree with this conclusion? If so, why?

How would you go about defending premise (5)? If someone believes that 12x12=156 I would consider that belief blameworthy.

 

[cvanwey]

How would you go about defending premise (5)? If someone believes that 12x12=156 I would consider that belief blameworthy.

I assert belief is involuntary, as you stated prior. You cannot simply will what you believe. If you think you can, will an opposite belief about anything you currently hold 'true'. You cannot simply tell yourself to believe the opposite, without some type of presented catalyst of some flavor or sort.

If a human studies a claim, any claim, and ultimately concludes the claim to be 'unbelievable', and this rendered conclusion is also involuntary, should such a human still be to "blame"? Let's delve in....

You study for and take a math test. You get the answer wrong (12X12=156). Does the teacher condemn you for eternity, or, instead maybe write the correct answer on your test, not pass you, and/or maybe allow you to try again another time?

On the case for a resurrection claim, and Christianity also being true, you do not truly know the answer until after you die; unlike verification of the math problem. And at that point, I would assume there exists no 'do-overs'.

Some believe, some do not. The reward, for the ones whom involuntarily believed it to be true, is eternal bliss apparently. The ones whom involuntarily believed He did not resurrect from the dead, are perpetually condemned, as Mark 16:15-16 suggests.

 

[zippy2006]

If a human studies a claim, any claim, and ultimately concludes the claim to be 'unbelievable', and this rendered conclusion is also involuntary, should such a human still be to "blame"? Let's delve in....

You study for and take a math test. You get the answer wrong (12X12=156). Does the teacher condemn you for eternity, or, instead maybe write the correct answer on your test, not pass you, and/or maybe allow you to try again another time?

The question at hand is whether I can be blamed for my mistake. If my mistake involves volition then I can be legitimately blamed. If it does not involve volition then I cannot be blamed.

Blame can be expressed in different ways. Some of these ways include eternal condemnation, failing a student, telling them they got it wrong, making them retake the test, etc. All of these actions are evidence that the student is to blame for their wrong answer, and therefore that volition was involved in their act of answering. So if you are a teacher and you blame a student for an incorrect answer by lowering their score, you are implicitly admitting that we choose our beliefs.

There are other examples too. Do you think a Christian who believes the earth is flat is at fault for their belief? Is it a blameworthy belief?

On the case for a resurrection claim, and Christianity also being true, you do not truly know the answer until after you die; unlike verification of the math problem. And at that point, I would assume there exists no 'do-overs'.

And if a student gets enough wrong answers they will fail high school.

I assert belief is involuntary, as you stated prior. You cannot simply will what you believe. If you think you can, will an opposite belief about anything you currently hold 'true'. You cannot simply tell yourself to believe the opposite, without some type of presented catalyst of some flavor or sort.

Sticking to our example, what would you say to the student? Suppose they have 8 lines of calculations leading up to their answer of 156. The student says to you, "I can't simply will what I believe! I can't simply believe that the answer is not 156! I went through the calculations and I found that the answer is 156. What do you want me to do!?"

 

[cvanwey]

@zippy2006 I'll address your response tomorrow. Have a party to attend... Priorities

 

[Ken-1122]

Sticking to our example, what would you say to the student? Suppose they have 8 lines of calculations leading up to their answer of 156. The student says to you, "I can't simply will what I believe! I can't simply believe that the answer is not 156! I went through the calculations and I found that the answer is 156. What do you want me to do!?"

Using the objective rules of math, you show the student where their calculations are wrong

 

[zippy2006]

Using the objective rules of math, you show the student where their calculations are wrong

Perhaps we could say that we show them why they have chosen a mistaken belief? We show them where in the calculations they chose poorly?

 

[Ken-1122]

Perhaps we could say that we show them why they have chosen a mistaken belief? We show them where in the calculations they chose poorly?

The reason it won't work is because math is objective; based on fact, beliefs are subjective; based on opinion.

 

[zippy2006]

The reason it won't work is because math is objective; based on fact, beliefs are subjective; based on opinion.

@cvanwey and I are discussing the question of whether beliefs are chosen. You are raising a different argument about subjectivism. It's a rather different matter, unless you are claiming that only objective beliefs are chosen?

My point is that the student has a belief that 12x12=156, this belief involves volition, and therefore the student can be held responsible for their belief. This is but one example of a belief that is "chosen."

 

[cvanwey]

The question at hand is whether I can be blamed for my mistake. If my mistake involves volition then I can be legitimately blamed. If it does not involve volition then I cannot be blamed.

I already see where you are going here, and I would agree. -- Involuntary conclusions can still have 'adverse or unwanted' resulting consequences.

I trust you also see where I will continue to be going, as cited in the OP? Let's proceed...

Blame can be expressed in different ways. Some of these ways include eternal condemnation, failing a student, telling them they got it wrong, making them retake the test, etc. All of these actions are evidence that the student is to blame for their wrong answer, and therefore that volition was involved in their act of answering. So if you are a teacher and you blame a student for an incorrect answer by lowering their score, you are implicitly admitting that we choose our beliefs.

There are other examples too. Do you think a Christian who believes the earth is flat is at fault for their belief? Is it a blameworthy belief?

I already agree that involuntary conclusions can lead to unwanted consequences. Let's try to think of an example, where getting a "math problem" wrong causes grave harm...

An asteroid is discovered heading towards earth. It's up to scientists to redirect this object. Calculations are made, via mathematics, to deflect this object. The calculations are incorrect. The asteroid still hits earth. Everyone dies. We already know the selected humans tried their hardest, but still got the answer wrong. And the result was global annihilation.

What's the difference between this result, and the result for which I pose, in the OP, you ask? Well...

The above result was not willed by an all watching agent, with the power to determine your result

If an intentional agent is watching, does the punishment fit the 'crime'? Well, since the humans in the asteroid example did not actually commit a crime, they were still punished. But according to God, incorrect discerned conclusions are considered crimes against God????

Not believing in the correct God is a crime, punishable for eternity?

And if a student gets enough wrong answers they will fail high school.

Please re-read what I stated...

"you do not truly know the answer until after you die; unlike verification of the math problem. And at that point, I would assume there exists no 'do-overs'."

Please try again.

Sticking to our example, what would you say to the student? Suppose they have 8 lines of calculations leading up to their answer of 156. The student says to you, "I can't simply will what I believe! I can't simply believe that the answer is not 156! I went through the calculations and I found that the answer is 156. What do you want me to do!?"

If I was the Christian God, I guess I would say...

"Well, based upon your incorrectly discerned final answer, and by the prescribed instructions of the Bible; for which I gave all my rules, I'm going to send you to a place of condemnation, forever."

 

[zippy2006]

I already see where you are going here, and I would agree. -- Involuntary conclusions can still have 'adverse or unwanted' resulting consequences.

I trust you also see where I will continue to be going, as cited in the OP? Let's proceed...



I already agree that involuntary conclusions can lead to unwanted consequences. Let's try to think of an example, where getting a "math problem" wrong causes grave harm...

An asteroid is discovered heading towards earth. It's up to scientists to redirect this object. Calculations are made, via mathematics, to deflect this object. The calculations are incorrect. The asteroid still hits earth. Everyone dies. We already know the selected humans tried their hardest, but still got the answer wrong. And the result was global annihilation.

What's the difference between this result, and the result for which I pose, in the OP, you ask? Well...

The above result was not willed by an all watching agent, with the power to determine your result

If an intentional agent is watching, does the punishment fit the 'crime'? Well, since the humans in the asteroid example did not actually commit a crime, they were still punished. But according to God, incorrect discerned conclusions are considered crimes against God????

Not believing in the correct God is a crime, punishable for eternity?

The problem with your reasoning is that when a scientist makes a miscalculation and an asteroid destroys earth, the destruction of earth is not an extrinsically applied punishment for the error. When I give a student an "F" on their exam, I am punishing or blaming them for poor voluntary choices that they have made.

Indeed, your argument is logically invalid. I gave a case of voluntary choice which is known to be voluntary because of the presence of punishment or blame. Your argument is invalid for two reasons:

1) You tried to show that there are involuntary choices that result in bad consequences. What you would be required to show is that all choices are involuntary, or that all choices which result in a bad consequence are involuntary. Showing that there is merely one case--the asteroid--would not prove your conclusion even if it were true.

2) You are equivocating between a bad consequence and punishment/blame. My argument specifically relies on punishment/blame, so to talk about a bad consequence of an asteroid which has nothing to do with punishment/blame is either a strawman or fallacious equivocation, depending on how you look at it.

If I was the Christian God, I guess I would say...

My question had nothing at all to do with the Christian God. Given your evasion, it would seem that you are unable to answer it.

 

[cvanwey]

The problem with your reasoning is that when a scientist makes a miscalculation and an asteroid destroys earth, the destruction of earth is not an extrinsically applied punishment for the error. When I give a student an "F" on their exam, I am punishing or blaming them for poor voluntary choices that they have made.

Indeed, your argument is logically invalid. I gave a case of voluntary choice which is known to be voluntary because of the presence of punishment or blame. Your argument is invalid for two reasons:

1) You tried to show that there are involuntary choices that result in bad consequences. What you would be required to show is that all choices are involuntary, or that all choices which result in a bad consequence are involuntary. Showing that there is merely one case--the asteroid--would not prove your conclusion even if it were true.

2) You are equivocating between a bad consequence and punishment/blame. My argument specifically relies on punishment/blame, so to talk about a bad consequence of an asteroid which has nothing to do with punishment/blame is either a strawman or fallacious equivocation, depending on how you look at it.

My question had nothing at all to do with the Christian God. Given your evasion, it would seem that you are unable to answer it.

So much to unpack here... Let's start here...

Again, incorrect 'beliefs/discernments/conclusions" can render specific consequences. -- The asteroid, for example... An incorrect conclusion rendered the result of a specific conclusion. The pre-existing physical laws were not evaded, due to poor discerned or believed conclusions. Hence, the end of human life. The question left to ask becomes... Was the scientist's incorrect conclusion moral/immoral/amoral?

If you, the teacher, give your student an "F", you are invoking the rules that either you follow, or maybe created yourself. -- The teacher may instead opt to grade on a 'curve'. The teacher may opt to go with pre-existing given rules (anything <60% equals "F"). The teacher may opt to give the student a do-over. Or maybe another set of rules. The teacher is the judge and jury to this proposition.

In this case, God presumably creates the rules for all physical laws; for which we are bound to follow or to instead accept the alternative consequences. God also created 'moral' laws... Does beliefs fall under physical or moral laws?

We must ask ourselves... Is belief a choice?

***************

Getting back to the math issue...

A) If I get the math problem wrong, by mistake, was this a moral/immoral/amoral act?

VS

B) If I get the math problem wrong intentionally, is this a moral/immoral/amoral act?

I currently conclude option A) is amoral. How about you?

Besides the point... Do amoral actions (themselves) render or deserve eternal condemnation??? According to the law giver, maybe they do?

 

[cvanwey]

Second response, as this is going into more than one direction, it seems...

Indeed, your argument is logically invalid. I gave a case of voluntary choice which is known to be voluntary because of the presence of punishment or blame.

Let's unpack this... 'Voluntary choice' is a broad statement. Why?

Instead, to make matters more relevant to the OP, the math question is to be answered as [true or false].

A) I don't know the answer. I guess and either get it correct or incorrect.
B) I think I truly know the answer, but still get the answer incorrect.
C) I think I know the actual answer, and purposefully answer incorrectly.

Now replace the math example, with the OP - about discerning/believing/concluding Jesus resurrected to save me as [true or false]. How does God deal with options A), B), and C), as per Mark 16:15-16?

1) You tried to show that there are involuntary choices that result in bad consequences. What you would be required to show is that all choices are involuntary, or that all choices which result in a bad consequence are involuntary. Showing that there is merely one case--the asteroid--would not prove your conclusion even if it were true.

Disagree. All I need to demonstrate, is the OP. God tells His peeps that if they do not believe, they will be eternally condemned. As with the math example above, we still look to have (3) available options?

A) I don't know the answer. I guess and either get it correct or incorrect.
B) I think I truly know the answer, but still get the answer incorrect.
C) I know the actual answer, and purposefully answer incorrectly.

God would know for which option I fall within, at judgement apparently, right?

2) You are equivocating between a bad consequence and punishment/blame. My argument specifically relies on punishment/blame, so to talk about a bad consequence of an asteroid which has nothing to do with punishment/blame is either a strawman or fallacious equivocation, depending on how you look at it.

The equivocation began, as soon as you brought up the "math problem". For which I immediately acknowledged why it still does apply, in part. - "Involuntary conclusions can lead to unwanted consequences".

Sure, you can assign 'blame' to the student for getting an incorrect answer. Maybe we need to explore 'blame' a bit?

I can blame a student for not studying. I can blame a student for rushing through the test. I can blame a student for not having the mental capacity to answer the question.

Or how about, I did not provide sufficient data for my student to get the right answer, and still assign eternal blame - ala eternal condemnation?

I can assign 'blame' in multiple ways. (i.e.) I can mark the answer wrong.

But in the case for a resurrection claim, is the 'blame' morally equal to that of the implied result, for not discerning the correct response?.?.?.?

My question had nothing at all to do with the Christian God. Given your evasion, it would seem that you are unable to answer it.

You are forcing my hand to answer a question, for which has very little to do with the OP

As a teacher, I would go over the answer with the student, and continue to try to tell them where they went wrong. Does God do this?

He seems to leave a Book behind, i.e. (Mark 16:15-16), and tells you to believe it, and offers no further instruction (like a teacher might). If the details within the left behind book alone do not change my belief, too bad. He is not going to intervene, like a math teacher could or might.

 

[zippy2006]

I should say that it would have been clearer in my previous post to use the term "voluntary belief" rather than "voluntary choice." I will try to make the change in this post.

So much to unpack here... Let's start here...

Again, incorrect 'beliefs/discernments/conclusions" can render specific consequences. -- The asteroid, for example... An incorrect conclusion rendered the result of a specific conclusion. The pre-existing physical laws were not evaded, due to poor discerned or believed conclusions. Hence, the end of human life. The question left to ask becomes... Was the scientist's incorrect conclusion moral/immoral/amoral?

If you, the teacher, give your student an "F", you are invoking the rules that either you follow, or maybe created yourself. -- The teacher may instead opt to grade on a 'curve'. The teacher may opt to go with pre-existing given rules (anything <60% equals "F"). The teacher may opt to give the student a do-over. Or maybe another set of rules. The teacher is the judge and jury to this proposition.

In this case, God presumably creates the rules for all physical laws; for which we are bound to follow or to instead accept the alternative consequences. God also created 'moral' laws... Does beliefs fall under physical or moral laws?

We must ask ourselves... Is belief a choice?

***************

Yes, that is what we are talking about: Is belief a choice? My contention has been that certain beliefs are clearly choices because we hold people responsible for beliefs, and praise or blame them, or reward or punish them, based on their beliefs. For example, the student who believes 12x12=144 is praised whereas the student who believes that 12x12=156 is blamed.

Now, do you see the difference between these two scenarios?

1. A student's test is marked down because they believe that 12x12=156.
2. The human race is destroyed by an asteroid because a scientist makes a mistaken calculation.

Scenario 1 has to do with praise and blame; scenario 2 does not. In scenario 1 the student is held responsible and punished for their belief, and the teacher punishes them because the student chose the belief. If the student did not choose the belief then it would not be fair to punish them. In scenario 2 there is no mention of punishment or reward. There is only a natural consequence of a miscalculation. Scenario 2 therefore has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Getting back to the math issue...

A) If I get the math problem wrong, by mistake, was this a moral/immoral/amoral act?

VS

B) If I get the math problem wrong intentionally, is this a moral/immoral/amoral act?

I currently conclude option A) is amoral. How about you?

Remember that we are talking about choice. Here are the two options:

A. If I get the math problem wrong by mistake, was this a choice?
B. If I get the math problem wrong intentionally, was this a choice?​

The answer is that in both situations the belief is chosen. We would not say that someone arrives at the wrong answer on purpose, as if they are attempting to be wrong, but nevertheless the student who believes that the answer is 156 freely chooses their belief and is therefore held responsible for their belief. The student who arrives at the answer of 156 chooses their belief no less than the student who arrives at the answer of 144. It is false to state that only the second student is exercising choice/volition in mathematics.

You are forcing my hand to answer a question, for which has very little to do with the OP

Again, the question we are currently considering is whether beliefs are chosen. That question is essential to the OP, as noted in post #5.

Sure, you can assign 'blame' to the student for getting an incorrect answer. Maybe we need to explore 'blame' a bit?

I can blame a student for not studying. I can blame a student for rushing through the test. I can blame a student for not having the mental capacity to answer the question.

I agree, and therefore you are blaming a student for a belief. For example, we might say that it is their fault that they arrived at the mistaken belief because they did not study for the test.

But in the case for a resurrection claim, is the 'blame' morally equal to that of the implied result, for not discerning the correct response?.?.?.?

This is a separate question. What you are essentially saying here is, "Okay fine, beliefs can be chosen, but isn't eternal damnation an excessive punishment for unbelief?"

What I will do, in logical fashion, is to assess premise (5). If premise (5) is false then argument (4-6) fails and conclusion (6) cannot be drawn. If premise (5) is true then argument (4-6) is sound and conclusion (6) is true. Once we have assessed premise (5) we can perhaps look at a different argument, such as this argument about excessive punishment.

As a teacher, I would go over the answer with the student, and continue to try to tell them where they went wrong. Does God do this?

Yes, according to Christianity God does do this. There is a famous Christian poem by Francis Thompson called, "The Hound of Heaven," which describes this very thing.

But again, this is another additional argument. You are saying, "Okay fine, we do choose our beliefs, but shouldn't the Teacher take special effort to show us where we went wrong and guide us to the correct belief?"

Again, one argument at a time.

 

[cvanwey]

Get ready for a 'bumpy' ride And maybe I should not have been so quick to virtually concede post #5 in haste.?.? Let's see where this all goes?...

Yes, that is what we are talking about: Is belief a choice? My contention has been that certain beliefs are clearly choices because we hold people responsible for beliefs, and praise or blame them, or reward or punish them, based on their beliefs.

Is 'blame' really the pillar for which you deem some/all belief to be a choice? 'Blame' can be assigned to person A, regardless of whether or not person A imposes a choice in a matter or not. Just because 'blame' is assigned, does not mean the 'blame' is automatically warranted. I guess we now need to explore if belief in a resurrection is clearly one of those choices to "blame"?

Can you choose whether or not you currently believe Jesus rose from the grave? Right now, you either believe He did, or you believe He did not. If you believe He did rise from the grave, and belief is a choice, can you simply will yourself to believe He did not rise from the grave? I think not. Can I get myself to believe He rose from the grave? I think not.

Not without some new catalyst, which might then force my hand to then discern a new conclusion.

For example, the student who believes 12x12=144 is praised whereas the student who believes that 12x12=156 is blamed.

You continue to use an improper analogy here. Under the tenets of a just God, 'blame' would presumably only be assigned if the student did not do what (s)he was asked, prior to the test. If the student willfully did not study, zipped through the test too fast, was absent for the test, or some other adjacent action, then yes, a just judge would then assign 'blame'.

Now, do you see the difference between these two scenarios?

1. A student's test is marked down because they believe that 12x12=156.
2. The human race is destroyed by an asteroid because a scientist makes a mistaken calculation.

Scenario 1 has to do with praise and blame; scenario 2 does not. In scenario 1 the student is held responsible and punished for their belief, and the teacher punishes them because the student chose the belief. If the student did not choose the belief then it would not be fair to punish them. In scenario 2 there is no mention of punishment or reward. There is only a natural consequence of a miscalculation. Scenario 2 therefore has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Praise and blame has nothing to do with "belief being a choice", as stated above. You are essentially arguing apples, while I'm arguing oranges I've just been going along for the ride.

Remember that we are talking about choice. Here are the two options:

A. If I get the math problem wrong by mistake, was this a choice?
B. If I get the math problem wrong intentionally, was this a choice?​

The answer is that in both situations the belief is chosen. We would not say that someone arrives at the wrong answer on purpose, as if they are attempting to be wrong, but nevertheless the student who believes that the answer is 156 freely chooses their belief and is therefore held responsible for their belief. The student who arrives at the answer of 156 chooses their belief no less than the student who arrives at the answer of 144. It is false to state that only the second student is exercising choice/volition in mathematics.

Neither answer was a 'choice'. If it were a choice, the one whom [chose] '144' could just as easily choose '156' as his/her earnest 'correct' answer The test taker comes to one conclusion, especially in math.

Again, the question we are currently considering is whether beliefs are chosen. That question is essential to the OP, as noted in post #5.

Discernements/beliefs are not chosen. If they are, I can choose to believe 12 X 12 = 156.

I agree, and therefore you are blaming a student for a belief. For example, we might say that it is their fault that they arrived at the mistaken belief because they did not study for the test.

Let's cut to the chase...

You are arguing that ignorance is no excuse. Mistaken belief is no excuse.

God's rule is that lack in belief, that He rose from the Grave, warrants eternal damnation?

Then please also go to the very end of my OP (i.e.):

However, if belief is not a moral action, and is instead an amoral action, then why does this look be God's criteria for condemnation?

This is a separate question. What you are essentially saying here is, "Okay fine, beliefs can be chosen, but isn't eternal damnation an excessive punishment for unbelief?"

No I am not. Beliefs are not chosen If they are, make yourself believe that 12 X 12 = 156.

What I will do, in logical fashion, is to assess premise (5). If premise (5) is false then argument (4-6) fails and conclusion (6) cannot be drawn. If premise (5) is true then argument (4-6) is sound and conclusion (6) is true.

You need to demonstrate that premise (5) is false. And you can start by choosing to believe 12 X 12 = 156.

Once we have assessed premise (5) we can perhaps look at a different argument, such as this argument about excessive punishment.

Or we can just address the bottom of the OP:

However, if belief is not a moral action, and is instead an amoral action, then why does this look be God's criteria for condemnation?

Yes, according to Christianity God does do this. There is a famous Christian poem by Francis Thompson called, "The Hound of Heaven," which describes this very thing.

But again, this is another additional argument. You are saying, "Okay fine, we do choose our beliefs, but shouldn't the Teacher take special effort to show us where we went wrong and guide us to the correct belief?"

Again, one argument at a time.

Well, this seems odd... In regards to the Christian claims, all we seem to have is the Bible, and the people whom want to teach from the Bible. At least in math, where we have the assigned/discovered rules, and all whom teach them, we do not have multiple denominations to sift through and reconcile, before discerning the correct answer