>>(because if it were immediately true and logically provable, believing wouldn't be needed at all).
>
>
>"For those who have faith, no explanation is necessary.
>For those without, no explanation is sufficient."

Exactly. I don't trust religion. And no matter how much propaganda comes at me, I'd find it hard to accept as truth. As half-truth, perhaps, if it weren't wrapped in propaganda.

Explanation is insufficient, specially if it requires the leap of faith, and specially if it goes against my intuition (which is just my old brain working in the background, faster than I can follow it). That leap is, IMO, the moment you abandon your complete knowledge of how the world works, and buy the bill of goods. You don't want to do that when someone's trying to get your money, which you can replenish later, but you do when it comes to your whole mind, of which you have a total of one, with no spares. That's brave, I wouldn't dare do that.

>Jesus testifies continually the ways of truth. Only those with the ability to hear truth will follow Him.

You can't know that. What you're getting is, at best, third or fourth re-telling, translation, redaction, and typos. It's brave to bet the farm on derivatives.

>There is a real spiritual battle in life. All people everywhere are losing because of sin, and the death which came by sin. It has blinded them to spiritual things. Jesus restores that life, and gives them restored vision.

"Sin" is whatever is defined as such by your religion, and doesn't apply to non-members. I'd rather stick to the definition of not doing harm to other people - bodily, mental, financial - as that's in the rules of what I am a member of, I like to think so, of humankind, not some subset of it which claims to be better than the rest.