Why would an atheist come to Christ, if not to avoid hell?

[JGG]

Yeah, that is why the whole emphasis on faith in Christianity, because knowledge is known to be impossible. Because it is known to be impossible, it isn't considered to be a reason for skepticism when it isn't achieved.

So we both realize that having knowledge in this case is impossible. And yet, I'm not supposed to be skeptical when it makes a claim?

You think that a theory, that seems to violate the law of identity with it's only premise

It may seem to, but it doesn't.

is more rational them theism because it doesn't provide physical evidence, when the theory says it shouldn't? Or did you have some actual rational objection to the position?

So, the theism theory specifically states that "this theory, if correct, will have no evidence to support it"?

That's irrational, and illogical. I don't need to object to it, it objects to itself.

 

[ElijahW]

So we both realize that having knowledge in this case is impossible. And yet, I'm not supposed to be skeptical when it makes a claim?

If the claim is made of knowledge of God or spirit, and not faith, then you have reason to be skeptical, but only after you are clear about how they are using the word knowledge. Though you don't have reason to be skeptical of the theist position because knowledge can't be obtained on the subject.

It may seem to, but it doesn't.

Please explain how it doesn't.

So, the theism theory specifically states that "this theory, if correct, will have no evidence to support it"?

That's irrational, and illogical. I don't need to object to it, it objects to itself.

Belief in things not seen is a core principle.

Explain how it is illogical please. What rule of logic does it violate?

 

[oi_antz]

Do you honestly think he would? I mean, realistically?

No idea. Pink Putter and Soothfish are good examples that you have observed genuine repentance from. Repentance is so personal and clashes with personal pride, it is always up to the individual when and if they take a lesson from any given event.

I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't assume it isn't.

There are remnants of their attitudes, why don't you make a judgment based upon that information?

I shouldn't read what Christians say about atheists in the Christians-Only section?

That is not what I mean. There is a clear pattern in your responses lately, you've been intentionally misconstruing my statements. No, what you should be doing is observing that some Christians have not overcome their demons.

Peppered throughout this thread.
Could you be specific? I know you often read a different meaning than what is intended. When I read what I wrote in that post you linked, it is clear that I am describing the antichrist sprit as being someone that is clearly apart from yourself. There is only one antichrist person in my reading of the scriptures and I never would have implied that I thought you were that person. What I did say is that you were tending to believe the arguments put forth to you by the antichrist spirit instead of the arguments put forth to you by The Holy Spirit. I do not feel that I should retract that statement, do you?

Ironically the same thread. To be fair your description was a little vague by comparison, and differs somewhat from the explanation in the thread. I just read the same information, and I didn't exactly find it compelling.

I would assume that firstly God is not telling you the same thing He told me when I first read it, secondly that is not the information you require to be saved at this time, and thirdly you are not prepared to accept the information you require in order to be saved. Do you disagree?

 

[andreha]

"If Hell is not eternal and not a place of punishment eternally, then Jesus dying on the cross was in vain. There was no reason for Him to take away the sins of the world.

Why then would an atheist come to Christ if there was no punishment, no penalty for breaking God's law?"

This is a question among many, put forth by a Christian elsewhere on the board.

Discuss...

For me, it is all about receiving and experiencing God's divine love. There's no love like that anywhere else. I need love like that - can't function without it. That's my 2c...

 

[JGG]

If the claim is made of knowledge of God or spirit, and not faith, then you have reason to be skeptical, but only after you are clear about how they are using the word knowledge. Though you don't have reason to be skeptical of the theist position because knowledge can't be obtained on the subject.

If knowledge cannot be obtained on the subject, then that is all the more reasonable to be skeptical of it's claims. At this point fact and imagination are indistinguishable.

Please explain how it doesn't.

How is it even violated. William Shatner is William Shatner. Pretty straightforward. Are you thinking William Shatner is something else?

Belief in things not seen is a core principle.

It may be a core principle, but that doesn't make it rational.

Explain how it is illogical please. What rule of logic does it violate?

Conclusions require previously established premises to be logical.

 

[JGG]

No idea. Pink Putter and Soothfish are good examples that you have observed genuine repentance from. Repentance is so personal and clashes with personal pride, it is always up to the individual when and if they take a lesson from any given event.

I really don't think either are particularly good examples. PP in the least showed no repentence at all, let alone genuine repentence and last time I ran into her was continuing her "atheists are the scum of the Earth" campaign.

There are remnants of their attitudes, why don't you make a judgment based upon that information?

Because I don't know it's accurate, and certainly not an indication of Christians or Christianity today.

That is not what I mean. There is a clear pattern in your responses lately, you've been intentionally misconstruing my statements. No, what you should be doing is observing that some Christians have not overcome their demons.

It may not be what you mean, but it's what I mean. I learn about Christian attitudes toward atheists and other non-Christians by reading what they have to say about us. There are plenty of threads in the forum that I keep up to date on, as well as books, articles, sermons, and websites. Frankly the Christian attitude toward us is remarkably clear.

Those Christians without those demons don't exist. They never did. Even the Biblical God hates atheists, why would Christians be any different?

Could you be specific? I know you often read a different meaning than what is intended. When I read what I wrote in that post you linked, it is clear that I am describing the antichrist sprit as being someone that is clearly apart from yourself. There is only one antichrist person in my reading of the scriptures and I never would have implied that I thought you were that person. What I did say is that you were tending to believe the arguments put forth to you by the antichrist spirit instead of the arguments put forth to you by The Holy Spirit. I do not feel that I should retract that statement, do you?

Not really. Like I said, I'm not too concerned with it.

I would assume that firstly God is not telling you the same thing He told me when I first read it, secondly that is not the information you require to be saved at this time, and thirdly you are not prepared to accept the information you require in order to be saved. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree. But I can't agree either. I looked for that God for most of my life. He had his chance, and there was nothing. That failure on that God's part to "tell me what I need to know" looks remarkably similar to a God who just doesn't care, that is of a different variety altogether, or doesn't exist to begin with.

 

[oi_antz]

I really don't think either are particularly good examples. PP in the least showed no repentence at all, let alone genuine repentence and last time I ran into her was continuing her "atheists are the scum of the Earth" campaign.

Well I did watch her and I saw a significant change for the better. Would you mind quoting that statement she made which you are referring to here?

Because I don't know it's accurate, and certainly not an indication of Christians or Christianity today.

Actually it is an indication of some Christians today. It may not be indicative of the majority of opinion but like you say, the majority of opinion isn't necessarily right.

It may not be what you mean, but it's what I mean. I learn about Christian attitudes toward atheists and other non-Christians by reading what they have to say about us. There are plenty of threads in the forum that I keep up to date on, as well as books, articles, sermons, and websites. Frankly the Christian attitude toward us is remarkably clear.

Do you not think though that it conflicts with the teaching of Jesus and His disciples?

Those Christians without those demons don't exist. They never did. Even the Biblical God hates atheists, why would Christians be any different?

No, God does not hate atheist's in the bible. People in the world hate atheist's and use the bible as an appeal to authority to prove that they are right. We've been over this before, you never managed to prove to me that atheist's are workers of iniquity.

Not really. Like I said, I'm not too concerned with it.

That apathy is interesting, it seems as though you don't care whether your thoughts align with the truth.

I don't disagree. But I can't agree either. I looked for that God for most of my life. He had his chance, and there was nothing. That failure on that God's part to "tell me what I need to know" looks remarkably similar to a God who just doesn't care, that is of a different variety altogether, or doesn't exist to begin with.

Have you never wanted to know why?

 

[ElijahW]

If knowledge cannot be obtained on the subject, then that is all the more reasonable to be skeptical of it's claims. At this point fact and imagination are indistinguishable.

That is just justification for your bias. You should consider the theory and then compare it to the alternative and consider that one as well. Skepticism is easy, and easier to justify but taking the time to consider the positions and figure out which one you consider more rational is the challenge.

How is it even violated. William Shatner is William Shatner. Pretty straightforward. Are you thinking William Shatner is something else?

God. You are suggesting S=G.

It may be a core principle, but that doesn't make it rational.

Obviously that was not the point, but to let you know that Christians are aware that there is no empirical evidence for spiritual things, so you are aware that you aren’t making any point with asking for that kind of proof.

Conclusions require previously established premises to be logical.

Established by who? By what standards? Who established those standards? What is the established premise to support the standards establishment?

 

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

In my (Orthodox) theology, Hell isn't a place or a state existing only to cause pain to the soul of the "wicked";
Paradise and Hell are the same thing; The reunion of the soul with God.
If you love Him, you will experience this reunion as Paradise and if you hate Him, you will suffer by his Presence.
However, people may love God, even if the don't believe in him. They may still be good and just.In other words, they may still be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, though they reject the Son (jesus Himself said that)

However, I'm not sure why you see Christianity as a particularly daunting religion.

Simple. Christianity is the only religion, whose founders (both Jesus and the apostoles) died for what they represented while they could just admit that they were liying and get away eith it. Has any other founder of a religion died in such a way?

I don't believe in hell at all.

Of course you believe in hell. Don't you agree that an "evil" person won't be as happy as a "good" one? Don't you agree that the "evil one will be unable to experience all the wonderful feelings that the good one does?"
Isn't the life of the "evil" one meaningless? Isn't that some kind of Hell?
isn't that some short of hell?

I'm just curious if Christianity can function without the threat of hell. The poster I quoted says that it can't. If not, isn't that a little sad?

It can. It is love and the need to live a meaningful life that fuels us.
People didn't follow the Christ because he threatened them with damnation, but because he helped them when noone else would. Because he accepted their company when everyone else would curse them unclean.
And because, if everyone followed His example, a lot of bad things wouldn't happen.

You say that Christianity isn't logical.
But so is poetry right? You can't examine the validity of a poem.
But even so, you can't deny that it contain some Truth in it.
And what is religion, if not a poem? A book if you may call it.
God is the writer, while we are the characters of his book.

And after all, what is logic? A human invention to conventionalize our own ignorance and inability to understand the World.
Logic and science are the path to reality. But reality is not Truth.
It is everchanging, while Truth is eternal.
Religion, like poetry and art (I consider them both forms of spirituality) are the path to the Truth, and that is why we so oftenly accuse them for being illogical. Because they can't touch the Truth through the tight boundaries of Logic. They can't and they must not be conventionalized.
They are irrational and illogical and may they forever remain so.

 

[JGG]

That is just justification for your bias. You should consider the theory and then compare it to the alternative and consider that one as well. Skepticism is easy, and easier to justify but taking the time to consider the positions and figure out which one you consider more rational is the challenge.

Skepticism is necessary and important. Those who do not use skepticism are gullible. And like I keep saying, just because the alternative theory is poor is not evidence of yours.

But just to be clear, you're saying that if someone makes an outlandish claim, I should not be skeptical. By the way, while I'm thinking of these things, I have $10,000,000 that I need to get out of my Swiss bank account, and I need your help. I will reward you for your trouble...

God. You are suggesting S=G.

Firstly, Great Kirk, no. I'm suggesting that Shatner is Shatner. Secondly, I don't see why it's a problem in any event. When J=G is that a problem?

Obviously that was not the point, but to let you know that Christians are aware that there is no empirical evidence for spiritual things, so you are aware that you aren’t making any point with asking for that kind of proof.

That's fine. But you understand you can't say they are rational claims?

Established by who? By what standards? Who established those standards? What is the established premise to support the standards establishment?

In our society, it was Aristotle. However, it was also developed in India in early Vedic transcripts, as well as in China, and the Middle East, all independent of each other.

 

[Philothei]

That's fine. But you understand you can't say they are rational claims?

Just because there is no empirical data of the spiritual world that does not make it invalid...The same as saying the universe is ... timeless or without end... It is not rational and the mind becomes incapable of knowing...

Yet we cannot disprove it either... We only know 3% of the universe if that much... how it is rational to "speculate" about it? Logic stops somewhere at least our minds are NOT programed for things above and beyond its limit. Same with the spiritual world somethings are indeed beyond our understanding.

 

[JGG]

Well I did watch her and I saw a significant change for the better. Would you mind quoting that statement she made which you are referring to here?

I haven't heard from her in ages, so I doubt I'd be able to find it. Suffice it to say, immediately following her departure from our conversation, she joined another where she continued to flog atheists, telling them what they think.

Actually it is an indication of some Christians today. It may not be indicative of the majority of opinion but like you say, the majority of opinion isn't necessarily right.

The problem is, there is no right. There is merely the opinion that is expressed.

Do you not think though that it conflicts with the teaching of Jesus and His disciples?

Not necessarily. Which teaching? Where does Jesus or any disciple command his followers specifically to love atheists?

No, God does not hate atheist's in the bible. People in the world hate atheist's and use the bible as an appeal to authority to prove that they are right. We've been over this before, you never managed to prove to me that atheist's are workers of iniquity.

Ps. 14: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.

That apathy is interesting, it seems as though you don't care whether your thoughts align with the truth.

It doesn't matter. You asked where that grain came from, I showed you. Do you want to show me where I claimed you were delusional?

Have you never wanted to know why?

I don't understand. Know what?

 

[JGG]

Just because there is no empirical data of the spiritual world that does not make it invalid...The same as saying the universe is ... timeless or without end... It is not rational and the mind becomes incapable of knowing...

Yet we cannot disprove it either... We only know 3% of the universe if that much... how it is rational to "speculate" about it? Logic stops somewhere at least our minds are NOT programed for things above and beyond its limit. Same with the spiritual world somethings are indeed beyond our understanding.

I totally agree. In fact, it has been my point from the beginning: I don't know. What I'm saying is that if people are prepared to speculate without knowledge, claim it as fact, and then condemn me, or show me their contempt for me because I don't just accept it, I'm gonna say something. Those people who claim to understand God, are the ones who eventually turn around and say "Kill all the heretics!", or "Fly planes into the buildings of the infidels!"

Heck, I think 3% is really optimistic. We barely know our own solar system.

 

[JGG]

In my (Orthodox) theology, Hell isn't a place or a state existing only to cause pain to the soul of the "wicked";
Paradise and Hell are the same thing; The reunion of the soul with God.
If you love Him, you will experience this reunion as Paradise and if you hate Him, you will suffer by his Presence.
However, people may love God, even if the don't believe in him. They may still be good and just.In other words, they may still be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, though they reject the Son (jesus Himself said that)

Simple. Christianity is the only religion, whose founders (both Jesus and the apostoles) died for what they represented while they could just admit that they were liying and get away eith it. Has any other founder of a religion died in such a way?

L. Ron Hubbard, or so Scientologists tell me. However, I don't see how that makes it any more true.

Of course you believe in hell. Don't you agree that an "evil" person won't be as happy as a "good" one? Don't you agree that the "evil one will be unable to experience all the wonderful feelings that the good one does?"
Isn't the life of the "evil" one meaningless? Isn't that some kind of Hell?
isn't that some short of hell?

I'm fuzzy on the whole "good/evil" thing. Afterall, lately if I hear from a conseravtive, liberals are evil, and yet liberals tell me how evil conservatives are. Evil seems to only be in the eye of the beholder.

It can. It is love and the need to live a meaningful life that fuels us.
People didn't follow the Christ because he threatened them with damnation, but because he helped them when noone else would. Because he accepted their company when everyone else would curse them unclean.

Well, if I may say so, I am an "apostate." I was excommunicated. I now have a meaningful life that I think would be lost to most Christians. When I was thrown out on my butt, and nobody would help me, and were actively trying to make my life difficult, I made my own way. When people cursed me, and disconnected from me, I left them.

And because, if everyone followed His example, a lot of bad things wouldn't happen.

That might be true, but Jesus isn't necessarily the only person for whom that is true.

You say that Christianity isn't logical.
But so is poetry right? You can't examine the validity of a poem.
But even so, you can't deny that it contain some Truth in it.

Right, but this is what I was saying about how religion is subjective rather than objective, just like poetry or art. They may contain truth, but that truth would be something that we determine objectively on its own.

And what is religion, if not a poem? A book if you may call it.
God is the writer, while we are the characters of his book.

That's a subjective claim though, right?

And after all, what is logic? A human invention to conventionalize our own ignorance and inability to understand the World.
Logic and science are the path to reality. But reality is not Truth.
It is everchanging, while Truth is eternal.
Religion, like poetry and art (I consider them both forms of spirituality) are the path to the Truth, and that is why we so oftenly accuse them for being illogical. Because they can't touch the Truth through the tight boundaries of Logic. They can't and they must not be conventionalized.
They are irrational and illogical and may they forever remain so.

The problem is without convention everybody ends up with different conclusions, and nobody is ever wrong. That truth is different for every religion and every individual. And people become so passionate about their false truth that they will war with those with another false truth. They will murder those who don't believe in their false truth. And they will do it claiming that they are justified in it, because they know the Truth.

Every Muslim is now justified if God tells him to bomb a group of Jews. A Hindu man can murder a Buddhist, and he is justified. A mother can kill her children because God told her to, and it is good. Men can fly passenger planes into skyscrapers, and they are martyrs for a just cause. One religion is inferior to another? Fire up the ovens, and prepare the gas chambers.

None of these people are wrong, none of them are evil, and none of them are responsible, because all of them have the Truth, and the rest of us don't. How can we say otherwise?

 

[Non sequitur]

Just because there is no empirical data of the spiritual world that does not make it invalid...The same as saying the universe is ... timeless or without end... It is not rational and the mind becomes incapable of knowing...

Yet we cannot disprove it either... We only know 3% of the universe if that much... how it is rational to "speculate" about it? Logic stops somewhere at least our minds are NOT programed for things above and beyond its limit. Same with the spiritual world somethings are indeed beyond our understanding.

I'd say you are assuming and positing that there is a 'spiritual word'. If there is no evidence for it, then how does one come up with the idea for it to exist. (Without begging the question.)

Does this not sound kinda hypocritical?

Appealing to the unknown, and how we can't even know what we know... yet you know?

 

[Philothei]

I'd say you are assuming and positing that there is a 'spiritual word'. If there is no evidence for it, then how does one come up with the idea for it to exist. (Without begging the question.)

Does this not sound kinda hypocritical?

Appealing to the unknown, and how we can't even know what we know... yet you know?

What is hypocritical and why?

Having no evidence to disprove it or prove it does not mean it does not exist....Maybe a "I do not know" answer would have been a more honest but for the ones who have experienced it is NOT hypocritical. That is what we have experienced and what we truly believe Please use your comments a bit more polite This is a christian forum and we try to be charitable...

Yes unknown is God for the ones who do not know Him.... For the ones who know Him He is present; there; always the same and hidden at the same time. If God was known how would He be God? For if we could comprehend Him fully then He would be a mere human NOT God... He reveals to us what He needs to reveal NOT what we think that He should reveal...

 

[Non sequitur]

What is hypocritical and why?

Having no evidence to disprove it or prove it does not mean it does not exist....Maybe a "I do not know" answer would have been a more honest but for the ones who have experienced it is NOT hypocritical. That is what we have experienced and what we truly believe Please use your comments a bit more polite This is a christian forum and we try to be charitable...

Well, if something cannot be evidenced, then it does not exist until proven later (with new evidence). It would be silly to specifically put something in the "maybe it does/it doesn't necessarily not exist" category, because everything is in that category all ready.

To single something out just speaks to the want of it to be, not the necessity/reality of it being; special pleading, if you will.

After all, we don't do that with everything.

Yes unknown is God for the ones who do not know Him.... For the ones who know Him He is present; there; always the same and hidden at the same time. If God was known how would He be God? For if we could comprehend Him fully then He would be a mere human NOT God... He reveals to us what He needs to reveal NOT what we think that He should reveal...

This god sounds like the Ultimate Where's Waldo. I would think someone who so loves the world and all people would want to be found, and not with conditions or veiled in mystery.

I don't see why "God" couldn't be known and still be "God".

 

[Philothei]

Well, if something cannot be evidenced, then it does not exist until proven later (with new evidence). It would be silly to specifically put something in the "maybe it does/it doesn't necessarily not exist" category, because everything is in that category all ready.

To single something out just speaks to the want of it to be, not the necessity/reality of it being; special pleading, if you will.

After all, we don't do that with everything.



This god sounds like the Ultimate Where's Waldo. I would think someone who so loves the world and all people would want to be found, and not with conditions or veiled in mystery.

I don't see why "God" couldn't be known and still be "God".

If God was obvious then He would 'twist our arm" and we would believve not out of free will but necessity...cause He is obvious... He did not create us to "force us" to love Him.. We have a choice to have a choice He took the risk of us rejecting Him. What good is to love and "obey" someone out of necessity? That is NOT very loving as we love freely that is exactly why God is "hidden" for he is not forcing us to love Him back... We come to Him with our own free choice.

 

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

L. Ron Hubbard, or so Scientologists tell me. However, I don't see how that makes it any more true.

If Christianity is not true, then by default, it's founders were;
a) liers/frauds
b)insane
A liar/fraus would never die in the way I mentioned above.

If they were mad, then
1) Each Apostole would suffer from a different delusion
2) Their teachings would not appeal to anyone, while even you can't deny the beauty in some of Jesus' teachings.
If not then why do you even bother posting on this forum. To convert us to atheism?

I'm fuzzy on the whole "good/evil" thing. Afterall, lately if I hear from a conseravtive, liberals are evil, and yet liberals tell me how evil conservatives are. Evil seems to only be in the eye of the beholder.

Excuse me for not being specific.
By 'evil' I mean someone with no respect for the human life, someone intolerant, full of hatred.
Such a person can't be truely happy in his life (according to many people, like Socrates)

Well, if I may say so, I am an "apostate." I was excommunicated. I now have a meaningful life that I think would be lost to most Christians. When I was thrown out on my butt, and nobody would help me, and were actively trying to make my life difficult, I made my own way. When people cursed me, and disconnected from me, I left them.

I am sorry to hear that you had to go through all this.
So, when people reject you, you leave them.
But if someone offered you company and support back then, wouldn't you accept it?
Perhaps you will answer no. Perhaps you don't need anyone (Jesus either).
But can you blame those who do?

That might be true, but Jesus isn't necessarily the only person for whom that is true.

So? Some believe that Marx is the one person they should follow, others believe it's Nitsche, other's believe it's Budha and so on.
I, like every other christian, decided that it's Jesus.
For us he is the one, because we feel it inside us.
If you can't feel this, then why do you post on this forum?

Right, but this is what I was saying about how religion is subjective rather than objective, just like poetry or art. They may contain truth, but that truth would be something that we determine objectively on its own.

Everything is subjective. Everything is changing.
That is why I need faith in something eternal. Something whose meaning won't fade no matter what. Like God. After studying Christianity, I decided it is the Word of God. That conclusion is subjective and that is why, unlike other believers, I don't go around rubbing my beliefs to people's faces.
You asked me sth concerning my faith and I aswered to you.
But I am certain that it is True because I have Faith that it is true. I feel it.
That's what faith is all about.

That's a subjective claim though, right?

Of course!
I am just telling you what Christianity claims. You came on this forum to examine it right?
Well, what Christianity claims is not that God can exist only in our mind, but that we, along with this whole World can exist only in God's mind.

The problem is without convention everybody ends up with different conclusions, and nobody is ever wrong. That truth is different for every religion and every individual.

So your "steady", non changing thing is not God but human conventions.
Acceptable. But humans are finite and so are their conventions.
I , personally, couldn't act as if these conventions are right and eternal, when they are clearly not. That's why I need God.
"God is necessary, therefore He must exist"
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky

And people become so passionate about their false truth that they will war with those with another false truth. They will murder those who don't believe in their false truth. And they will do it claiming that they are justified in it, because they know the Truth.

That's not the case with Christianity.
Jesus said; "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword "

He also told us to never call unclean someone who God allows to exist in this world.

And despite being omnipotent, he accepted death and humiliation instead of fighting back.

Of course, you will say; "What about the Crusades?"
The crusades were contrary to the teachings of the Bible.
There is not a single Christian today that believes otherwise.
And in Orthodox theology ( ) there was never a concept of Holy War.
Don't believe me?
wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army#Byzantine_military_philosophy

As you can see, Jesus accepted everyone. If you wish to continue to believe that the Christ would hate atheists then go on. But know that it is not true. If you read the New Tastement, you will see He accepted even the most hated person of the sociaty of His time.

None of these people are wrong, none of them are evil, and none of them are responsible, because all of them have the Truth, and the rest of us don't. How can we say otherwise?

You sound just like a christian fundamentalist
He says the exact same thing when he hears that the teachings of the Bible are objective. The only difference between you and him, on this subject, is that he has the Bible and you have human conventions. What the both of you have to understand is that people don't think alike and they never will.
Everyone will try to approach Truth through different paths. and you have to respect their choices.
If they commit a crime in the name of their ideology, then they will be judged by the laws of one's country.
But you can't persecute them just because of their ideology.

You asked in your post; Why would I come to Christ?
I'll tell you why. To be complete.
Faith is, for me, one of the most beautiful feelings a human being can experience. A very complex feeling.
I wouldn't want to die without experiencing it. That would be a waste!
And last but definitely not least; Faith is a sense like hearing, sight, vision etc.
You can't see air, but you can hear it and touch it.
You can't see, touch, taste God, but you can percieve His existance through faith.
A man without faith is , as much as you may hate me for saying this, a disabled man, like a man without vision.

 

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

It would be silly to specifically put something in the "maybe it does/it doesn't necessarily not exist" category, because everything is in that category all ready.

Spirituality, the need to approach the Divine existed since the appearence of our kind in this Earth.
It is catholic among our species which indicates it is a human need, just like thirst or hunger.
You cannot be thirsty while there is no water somewhere to fulfill your thirst.
You cannot be hungry while there is no food to fulfill you hunger.
You feel the need to approach the Divine if there is no Divine there to be approached.

I would think someone who so loves the world and all people would want to be found, and not with conditions or veiled in mystery.

I don't see why "God" couldn't be known and still be "God".

You haven't read the New Testament have you?
When Jesus was in the Desert, Satan came to him and said;
"Turn these stones to bread and people will believe you and follow you"
Jesus refused for He knew that if He did such a thing, people would only follow Him out of fear of losing the bread.

God made us free and we are to follow Him or reject Him by our own free will.