Thanks for good conversation.

> A Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew or person of whatever other belief is not rebelling against Jesus anymore than an American is rebelling against Russia.

Actually, they are. Muslims regard Jesus (Isa) as an important prophet. He was born of a virgin and performed miracles (both of which are untrue of Muhammad). There are more teachings in the Qur'an about Isa than about Muhammad. He is known as the Spirit of God and the Word of God, titles not attributed to Muhammad, and Isa is also regarded by the Qur'an as holy and sinless. He was also raised up by Allah to the heavens, and will be the one to return to earth to establish the community of Islam, and all people of the Book will believe in him. The Qur'an does not speak of him as inferior to Muhammad.

Jews have rebelled against him, because when he was here on earth he showed himself to be the Moses that Moses never was, the David that David never was, the Israel that Israel never was. He revealed YHWH in his fulness, and yet the people were hard of heart and refused to believe.

The Hindus have rebelled against Jesus. When I said "everybody wants a piece of Jesus," you need to realize that Hindu legend teaches that Jesus spent some of his teenage years in India. But Hindus he is considered to have been an enlightened guru characterized by God-consciousness. But Jesus claimed to be not only God, but also the only God. Hindus are contradicting themselves when they claim he was a guru of God-consciousness, but then refuse to believe his enlightened teachings.

> Worse in making Jesus god you are practicing idolatry

I know that Muslims don't believe in the deity of Jesus. Jesus claimed deity for himself in the Gospels, and Muslims recognize the Gospels as being Holy Scriptures.

> The plan of salvation has proved insufficient in winning all people. The Gospel is not good enough news to attract the majority of people of other religions. This is a simple fact that you are ignoring.

I am not ignoring this fact. i agree that the plan of salvation has not won the majority of people from other religions. As I said, it's not because of the inadequacy of the plan, but because of the rebellion of people.

> It does not attract the majority of people to it

If this is your criterion of truth, then no religion is true. But it's a false criterion. Truth is not based on the fact that the majority of people subscribe to it, but in its correlation with reality.

> most Christians are Christian by accident of birth

No one is a Christian by birth. A person becomes a Christian when they repent of their sins, believe in Jesus as God who has redeemed them from sins, and pledge their life to love and obey God. People can be born Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, but this is not the case with Christians. Someone must choose to become a Christian.

> People's rebellion is not necessarily the best standard by which to judge something.

A Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew or person of whatever other belief is not rebelling against Jesus anymore than an American is rebelling against Russia. They are not thinking Jesus is the real god, but I'm sticking with Allah or Krishna or whatever god they follow. To a Muslim you have got it wrong. In following Jesus you are sticking to a prophet inferior to Muhammad. Worse, in making Jesus god you are practicing idolatry.

The plan of salvation has proved insufficient in winning all people. The Gospel is not good enough news to attract the majority of people of other religions. This is a simple fact that you are ignoring.

You take some trouble to show that Christianity is superior ignoring the fact that apologists for other religions can do the same thing in favor of their belief. But let's stipulate that you are right. Christianity is better or even the only (having figured out which of its denominations is/are correct) real religion. This does not matter. It does not attract the majority of people to it. Two thirds of the world's population of humans believe something else with the same surety as Christians demonstrate to their faith.

In addition most Christians are Christian by accident of birth and not because they have been won by some other belief. The same is true of other religions. This probably means the people have the religion they have for pretty much the same reason they speak the language they.

> Of course I wouldn't do this, but that doesn't make the statement untrue.

It doesn't matter if it is true or not. What matters is that it doesn't work, which is exactly why you wouldn't do it. You can make true statements about Jesus all day, but most people will not see them as true inasmuch as the statements contradict what they already know to be true. Since the Gospel does not change their minds it is inadequate for salvation unless you are willing to say God restricts belief mostly to people who are lucky enough to be born to Christian parents in Christian friendly societies.

> The problem is that even if true it doesn't attract the majority of people to it.

People's rebellion is not necessarily the best standard by which to judge something. For instance, in 1917 Lenin led a communist revolution against the ruling monarchy. It's my evaluation, along with others, that communism was not a better idea than what it supplanted. The failure of communism in Soviet Russia in 1989 led to its collapse as a system a mere 70 years later. Just because the majority of people don't subscribe to Christianity is no particular measure of its value. Another analogy: The U.S. could raise enough food in its central states to feed the entire world. It is effective enough for the job. It does not, however, because of other factors that interfere with that task. Christianity is effective to save the whole world, but there are other factors that interfere with the task. Just as the political & economic obstacles of the world interfere with America's breadbasket feeding the whole world (through no fault of the land and its capabilities), so also the spiritual obstacles of the world interfere with Christianity's attracting the majority of people to it (through no fault of the belief system).

> Christianity is no more testable than any other religion.

Not at all. Christianity is eminently testable, while Hinduism and Islam are distinctly NOT testable.

1. Christianity is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, since they are based on public events that can be falsified, and there is an open invitation to question and investigate. Christianity has a significant amount of historically verifiable data, it has historically rooted characters and events within its schema that are identifiable through forensic sciences like archeology and textual criticism.

Michael Patton says, "If I decided to start a religion, deceptively or not, I would not make false claims to recent historic events that did not happen. Why? Because I know that these claims could be tested. More than that, I would not give details about the time, place, and people involved. More than that, I wouldn’t invite contemporaries to investigate these claims. For example, if I were to say today that in 1965 there was a man named Titus who was born in Guthrie, OK and traveled about Oklahoma City doing many miracles and gaining a significant following, this could be easily falsified. I would not say that Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, along with Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma, had Titus electrocuted. I would not detail that it was in Bricktown on January 13, 1968 at 9 am. Then, added to this, to claim that Titus rose from the dead and gained a significant following throughout Oklahoma City which has spread across America. Why wouldn’t I make these claims as the foundation of my new religion? Because they can be easily tested and falsified. This religion could not possibly get off the ground. If I were to make up a religion, all the events which support the religion (if any) would be private and beyond testing. This is why you don’t have religions based on historic events. They are all, with the exception of Christianity, based on private encounters which cannot be falsified or subjective ideas which are beyond inquiry. The amazing thing about Christianity is that there is so much historic data to be tested. Christianity is, by far, the most falsifiable worldview there is. Yet, despite this, Christianity flourished in the first century among the very people who could test its claims. And even today, it calls on us to 'come and see' if the claims are true."

2. Jesus' resurrection is subject to historical inquiry.

3. The Christian Bible is subject to historical, cultural, geographical, and archaeological accuracy and reliability.

On another front, however, it is often claimed that the theological (and miraculous) claims of the Bible are unverifiable, and that renders them untrue. Are all things that are true empirically and scientifically verifiable? Not even close. If there is a God, for instance, his existence is not scientifically provable. Some of his actions in history may be, but even then science would be unable to prove a metaphysical source for those actions. In other words, certain actions attributed to God may not be verifiable, but they can't be refuted either. Scientifically, while I may be able to verifiably claim that "all crows I have ever seen are black," as well as "all crows anyone has ever seen are black," that does not close the door to the possibility of a crow somewhere that is not black. Verification can only take us so far, and even less distance theologically.

> Science provides a worldview that actually matches the way the world is.

Science can only take us so far. It is only a small part of what humanity considers to be knowledge. Science cannot speak on subjects like law, economics, politics, music, literature, philosophy, math, logic, and so many others. Christianity, on the other hand, provides a good worldview match to reality. It is consistent with what we see in the world: the existence of good and evil, purpose, meaning, personality, conscience, morality, etc. These are verifiable, though not by science. Christianity squares with the way the world is and the way people are. It tells an honest and accurate story of humanity and life.

> No this is not true. You have listed two religions here. That is not every religion nor every sect of the religions you have mentioned.

I disagree. Buddhism and Jainism are just sects of Hinduism. Confucianism is mere moral platitudes, not a religion, per se. Animism and pantheism are inadequate as worldviews.

> I dare you to shout this out on a street corner in downtown Riyadh.

Of course I wouldn't do this, but that doesn't make the statement untrue. it has been well established that they shoot lots of good people and truth-tellers.

> Christianity is the most reasonable conclusion for people

It doesn't matter if it is. That is not the problem. The problem is that even if true it doesn't attract the majority of people to it. Christianity fails to convert the majority of people therefore it is ineffective at the task of saving all people. The majority of people are not rejecting Jesus out of spite or in spite of knowing that it is "the most reasonable conclusion". They reject Christianity for the same reasons you reject Hinduism or Islam. That is they believe that their religion is true or the most true and yours is not. This condition is what the plan of salvation fails to overcome.

> Christianity is testable (Hinduism and Islam are not).

Christianity is no more testable than any other religion.

> In Christianity, salvation is a free gift from God. In all other religions, salvation must be earned or deserved

This does not make it superior to other religions except in the minds of Christians. It is a difference but it no way makes Christianity superior. A case could be made that this feature makes Christianity inferior to other religions.

> With Christianity you get a worldview that actually matches the way the world is.

Science provides a worldview that actually matches the way the world is. No religion provides as good a match. In addition this match is only in the mind of Christians, not in the minds of other believers who believe their worldview matches reality just fine.

> Christianity has Jesus at the center. Every religion wants a piece of Jesus. Hindus consider him enlightened; Muslims consider him a prophet. Christianity IS Jesus.

No, this is not true. You have listed two religions here. That is not every religion nor every sect of the religions you have mentioned. Nor does it make Jesus attractive enough to lure more than just a few of other believers from their natal religions.

> Islam is more like a cult of Christianity

I dare you to shout this out on a street corner in downtown Riyadh.

The point of the Bible is not to tell us everything we would like to know about everything. It is to reveal God to us, to let us know about the sin that separates us from him, to invite us into relationship with him, letting us know the benefits of doing that and to warn us of the dangers of rejecting him. There are thousands of other things we would surely wish to know if we had a chance to interview God for, oh, say, a year or so (because a day or a week would hardly be adequate for all of our questions). The point of the Bible is not to tell us everything, but to tell us one thing: How to know God and have a relationship with him. (Is that two things?)

Is this unfair to others? No, because God makes allowances. You see it all through the Bible: God makes merciful and fair allowances in the case of people who had less to go on.

> To put it another way the Christian plan of salvation is not sufficient in attractiveness to snag most of population and haul them into the lifeboat.

Christianity is the most reasonable conclusion for people who are objective students of comparative religions. After all, when it comes right down to it, there are really only two choices: Christianity and Hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism are versions of Hinduism, and Islam is more like a cult of Christianity. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity. The animistic and pantheistic views are inadequate to explain all of human experience, and atheism is a rejection of (or sometimes an agnostic response to) theism. Hinduism is a philosophical religion that clashes with life, while Christianity is both philosophical and historical, intellectual and emotional, mystical and practical.

Christianity is unique in that it doesn't fit the category of "religion," and if someone were going to examine the religions of the world, he or she should start with Christianity, and here's why.

1. Christianity is testable (Hinduism and Islam are not).
2. In Christianity, salvation is a free gift from God. In all other religions, salvation must be earned or deserved.
3. With Christianity you get a worldview that actually matches the way the world is.
4. Christianity has Jesus at the center. Every religion wants a piece of Jesus. Hindus consider him enlightened; Muslims consider him a prophet. Christianity IS Jesus.

Christianity is certain sufficient in attractiveness to snag most of the population and haul them into the lifeboat. They choose otherwise for reasons other than Jesus, his wonderful teachings, his offer of the free gift of life, his grace in doing everything for you, and how well Christianity dovetails with the realities of life.

> I believe that God's plan of salvation will be gauged as more than fair—gracious and merciful even—when we know all the pieces to the puzzle.

Why don't we know all the pieces of the puzzle now? What is the delay? Without this knowledge it seems unfair and therefore suspect, especially to those born into other religions which is most of the human population.

To put it another way, the Christian plan of salvation is not sufficient in attractiveness to snag most of population and haul them into the lifeboat.

To be openly honest with you (and not just contentious), there are so many different theories about this stuff it's hard to speak with authority. Some theologians feels that Christ died only for the elect, and so his plan of salvation is 100% effective. Others feel that he died for all humankind, but only the elect will be saved while the unbelievers will cease to exist (annihilationism), and so his plan of salvation is 100% for his target. Others feel that he died for all humankind, but only the elect will be saved while the unbelievers will go to hell, but there will be further chances for them to respond to Christ's appeal for reconciliation, even there, and some will be saved (semi-restorationism or reconciliationism), so that his plan is going to be far more effective than we are thinking or imagining.

We also don't exactly know how God is going to deal with those who never heard, except that he will not be unfairly harsh with them but will be perfectly fair, despite that they didn't have a clue who Jesus was.

The bottom line turns out to be this: Make sure you are one of the ones who responds positively to Christ's invitation to salvation so that you are one of the ones who enters eternity blessed rather than wondering. That's the real point of all this.

Ultimately, I believe that God's plan of salvation will be gauged as more than fair—gracious and merciful even—when we know all the pieces to the puzzle.

> Its extent is to seek and to save those who are lost, and to bring salvation to those who turn to Jesus in love and faith.

Would you agree that this salvation plan isn't very effective in that it only saves a few of the lost. If so, does God want the plan to be ineffective for some or even most as Paul maybe suggests, or is the just the best God can do?

First of all, I don't agree with Warren. Psalm 139.16 isn't saying that every detail of your life is planned (as if we were mere robots walking through the paces), but instead that all the days of our lives rest under the sovereign care of God—a completely different thought.

Nor is God responsible for everything that happens on the planet. There are many forces at work on Earth, both natural and spiritual. We are necessarily creatures of free will, and so many things that happen are our doing, not God's. The Bible also speaks confidently of other spiritual beings and forces that are at work in the world, and their activity is not of God's doing either.

In the Bible, God's plan concerns salvation, not every minuscule detail of our lives. His plan of salvation is what so much of the Bible is about, a plan devised from before creation that He will bring to its suitable conclusion at the proper time. The events of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, the prophets, and the Temple all pertain to salvation history and God's plan of salvation. That, to answer your question, is what the plan of God is about. Its extent is to seek and to save those who are lost, and to bring salvation to those who turn to Jesus in love and faith.

What is the extent and nature of God's plan, if He has one? Rick Warren in chapter 2 of his A Purpose driven life says: "Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]"

This seems pretty extreme to me as it would mean among other horrendous things, that God plans rapes as some children would not happen without a particular sperm and egg getting together via a rape. Of course it would also mean that god plans the method of your death as well. Whether you die peacefully in your sleep or screaming in pain and fear in a nightclub is up to God's premeditated plan.

As a chef I used to plan out how my meals and banquets would go and they most often did go that way more or less. But occasionally things would go wrong and I'd be running around putting out fires left and right. Perhaps this happens to God's plans too? He had something in mind but it all got f****** up and he's just doing the best he can? He manages to get some fires put out, but he just can't get to them all?

Given the human condition it seems that God wants it like this or that he doesn't really have the power to get things back on track in a timely fashion.