Hello People

So I was watching the Hitchens v Craig debate again (I was greatly disappointed) and came up with my own rebuttal to some of Craig's points and in between comments. I will only share a couple. Please feel free to let me know of any loopholes in my logic. Devil's advocates welcome.

Thanks,
Joseph

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU

Craig stated that he's belief in Christianity and specifically, his denomination of Christianity, is a result of his assessment on what doctrine is most logical. Well his logic didn't go far. In fact, I presume that it didn't go past his childhood home. If you're going to decide what doctrine rules your life based on what the most logical religion is, it's only logical to ensure that you have considered every religion that is, at the very least, known to man before arriving at a conclusion. He may be a theologian, but I doubt he has studied every religion out there). That's every religion and every denomination of each religion.

Which brings up the case of "brethren" in his religion which he mentioned. He stated he may not agree with Calvinists and believes their teachings are wrong, but they are all brothers despite - implying they will all go to heaven regardless of which kind of Christian they are. Now I know for a fact that it is stated amongst at least most of the individual denomination's Book of Revelations that any emends made to their Bible is equivalent to a sin against the Holy Ghost and I also know that the law that states false teachings are sins against God is general knowledge. If these are the cases across all the denominations, then they each believe the other will surely burn in hell. Why would Craig believe that his God will overlook the false teachings (whether knowingly or unknowingly it was false) and allow them into the same heaven as he? I observe that he believes his God is an understanding god; one that, therefore, approves of their skeptic nature, if you will. Well I would like to know why the permitted maximum degree of skepticism is set so low. My mistake. There are actually no specifications set forward to endorse the idea of a permitted maximum degree of skepticism. And if your rebuttal is along the lines of "acceptance of Jesus Christ as Earth's Savior and the Son of God is all that is required", does that make being a skeptic to an unspecified and impossibly attainable degree not a sin and therefore those that indulge in such way of thinking are not doomed to hell (that would arguably consist of everyone, ever). If you claim it is still a sin, then I argue that your God permits non-repenters into heaven contrary to general belief. If you say it isn't a sin, then I conclude that there is no such thing as sin sanctioned by God that we can ever have knowledge of as there is neither a way to determine what else is not a sin nor one to determine for what is.

In the event that you say false teaching is a sin, I hysterically consider the scenario for the Calvinists, Baptists, e.t.c. where they commit the sin of "false teaching" and God forgives them, but they never repent so they sin immediately after - and thus the cycle begins. Eventually, God will decide to end the world as we know it and what side of the coin of forgiveness and sin is faced upwards at this time of reckoning will determine the fate of the aforementioned sects of Christianity. If I were in the shoes of one of the cults and it were my fate to burn in hell, I would argue that such abstract elements like probability and time, which had majority roles in the game of sin and forgiveness, were out of my control and not properties that existed in the realm of "free will" that he granted me. Therefore, I should not be held accountable.