Belief is not a choice, but only a result

1. Belief is not a choice, but only a result of evidenceI starting writing a long response to this, and found that the more I wrote, the more it detracted from the crux of the issue. Though I'm not conceding this point, I want to defer the discussion of it for this round. In the end I don't think it's necessary for the end result, and I want to stay focused on the main point, namely that even if belief were not a choice, it doesn't affect the validity of Christianity.2. Christianity requires everyone to be able to believe in it to be validI am going to distill my argument against this down into premise - conclusion form:Premise: There exist Christian churches and individual Christians who do not believe in religious exclusivity, i.e., that Christianity is not the only way to an understanding and relationship with God.Proof: Link to United church site provided in previous roundConclusion: Either a) You do not have to believe in religious exclusivity to be Christian or b) The churches and individuals mentioned in P1 are not truly ChristiansThe conclusion logically flows from the premise.So, in order to argue that religious exclusivity is required by Christianity, you need to prove that the churches and individuals who are religiously inclusive are not real Christians. It's a bold and tall order to do.It seems like you're attempting to argue for conclusion b by making an appeal back to the "first editions" of the Bible. Your argument seems to go like this:Premise 1: The "first editions" of the Bible insist on religious exclusivity, i.e. that Jesus is the one and only way to God.Premise 2: Those who do not follow the "first editions" of the Bible literally are not truly ChristiansConclusion: The churches and individuals who do not believe in religious exclusivity are not truly ChristiansThe argument is sound, but you still need to prove the truth of your premises (P1 and P2). In regards to P1, there are no official "first editions" of the Bible. Originally, it was just a series of writings, handed down from generation to generation. What is now the 'Old Testament' came mainly from the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Jewish Torah. What is now the 'New Testament' was originally a set of Greek manuscripts, written by numerous different authors. Eventually, after centuries of these being handed down from generation to generation, Pope Damasus I commissioned a translation of all of these into Latin in 382 CE. This translation, the Latin Vulgate Bible (LVB), was copied and recopied for over a millennium, until in 1546, it was declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be the only authentic Bible.There is no way to know how close the LVB is to the original texts, or what changes were made to the story in the fifteen centuries between Christ's death and the creation of the LVB. You could use the LVB itself as the "first editions" of the Bible, but then you'd be excluding many proclaimed Christians, including up to 300 million Orthodox Christians.As for P2, I can't begin to think where you would find proof for this. Even if you ignore the "first editions" part, I can think of no evidence that would prove this point. It's true that there exist Christians that argue you must take the Bible literally. However, there are also Christians who argue that the Bible can be taken figuratively. Even if there are a majority of Christians that insist of a literal interpretation of the Bible, that still doesn't prove the premise. A premise is not a vote or popularity contest. It has to be proven with reason.To state that multitudes of people who say they are Christian are really not Christian because they don't literally follow the "first editions" of the Bible is an outrageous claim. It denies the beliefs of millions of people without evidence or proof.SummaryThere are millions of Christians that believe in religious inclusively. This means that either Christianity is not at odds with non-belief, or that those who believe in inclusively are not really Christian. I assert the former. To argue the latter carries an impossible burden of proof, and denies the beliefs of millions of people.In regards to religiously inclusive Christians, you said that "I wish it were so, but I cannot will truth". Well it is so. It is the truth. I have already provided a link proving it to be true. Unless, that is, you truly feel you have the authority to say that the people in the United church are not real Christians.