Why I am a Christian.

[SensEye]

I can see your argument from the perspective that once you accept God exists, Christianity makes some rational sense from a historical perspective. But if you are not at that point (which by definition atheists are not) this line of reasoning leads nowhere.

But it's fine if you, as a Christian, are just trying to rationalize your faith as not just being based on a fallacy (like, for example, Scientology), but it's not going to move the needle for non believers.

 

[Quick]

I am curious - what was your primary objective in creating this thread? To be clear, this is a genuine question seeking understanding, and not a rhetorical/antagonistic one. Were you simply wanting to share your religious experiences/epiphanies/studies, or were you also hoping to convert people who engage here? Were you expecting any specific sort of response from members here - and if so, exactly what sort and why? There's no 'wrong' answer - I'm asking because these things are unclear.

Thanks for your questions.

What was my objective? Nothing I can pin down and say, "I desire X result." It's just something I have to do is talk about my faith. It's a similar feeling as Jeremiah felt when he said, more or less, that he has a fire in his belly and he just cannot keep quiet. (If you are wondering, I will try and keep my posts relevant to the topic and not start religious debates where they do not belong. The thread concerning death does seem somewhat relevant to religion since pretty much all the major religions do believe in life after death.)

As far as converting people is concerned, it is a desire I have, but at the same time, I do not believe in forced conversions or anything like that. Also, keep in mind that I am an INFP so it is very much more about me sharing my experiences than it is about pushing my values on other people. Do I have strong convictions? Yes, very much so. Am I going to try and force those convictions on other people? No, not at all. Plus, as someone else in the thread already said, changing someone else's mind on something they have stong beliefs about is dang near impossible anyways. In other words, my approach is to sow seeds and let God take care of the rest. I am not actively trying to convert people. I am sharing what I must. I don't believe I have any power in myself to change anyone's mind on anything.

I really had no expectations in sharing what I did in the OP. I should expect hostility at this point given that this is not my first rodeo. I have found when it comes to religion, many people are overly critical and resistant to what I am saying as a Christian no matter how polite, caring, kind, etc. I have been. I have been mocked for my beliefs many times. Usually, it does not bother me too much. I try and stick to the argument at hand most of the time. Does that mean that I am never upset at what someone says about me? I would be lying if I said I never get upset at people being hostile towards what I believe when in fact I try my best not to mock other people's beliefs or belittle them or whatever other negative thing that makes it personal.

 

[Quick]

I can see your argument from the perspective that once you accept God exists, Christianity makes some rational sense from a historical perspective. But if you are not at that point (which by definition atheists are not) this line of reasoning leads nowhere.

But it's fine if you, as a Christian, are just trying to rationalize your faith as not just being based on a fallacy (like, for example, Scientology), but it's not going to move the needle for non believers.

Right. I agree with you that reason alone cannot change anyone's mind. That is why I think it is primarily spiritual when someone becomes a genuine Christian and probably the vast majority of people who convert (as an adult) to Christianity do so because they have had an experience that changed their life. That does not mean that apologetics is useless. Sometimes people start on a journey of being curious about other faiths as an atheist or agnostic and when they start studying the arguments, more and more they find it reasonable to be a Christian. Of course, the last step is a step of faith. As J. Warner Wallace says (as he was a detective/police officer for many years) you have to go from having a knowledge the bulletproof vest will protect you to having a trust that the vest will protect you. And that is very much a spiritual thing rather than a knowledge or logic-based thing.

 

[Lexicon]

Thanks for your questions.

What was my objective? Nothing I can pin down and say, "I desire X result." It's just something I have to do is talk about my faith. It's a similar feeling as Jeremiah felt when he said, more or less, that he has a fire in his belly and he just cannot keep quiet. (If you are wondering, I will try and keep my posts relevant to the topic and not start religious debates where they do not belong. The thread concerning death does seem somewhat relevant to religion since pretty much all the major religions do believe in life after death.)

As far as converting people is concerned, it is a desire I have, but at the same time, I do not believe in forced conversions or anything like that. Also, keep in mind that I am an INFP so it is very much more about me sharing my experiences than it is about pushing my values on other people. Do I have strong convictions? Yes, very much so. Am I going to try and force those convictions on other people? No, not at all. Plus, as someone else in the thread already said, changing someone else's mind on something they have stong beliefs about is dang near impossible anyways. In other words, my approach is to sow seeds and let God take care of the rest. I am not actively trying to convert people. I am sharing what I must. I don't believe I have any power in myself to change anyone's mind on anything.

I really had no expectations in sharing what I did in the OP. I should expect hostility at this point given that this is not my first rodeo. I have found when it comes to religion, many people are overly critical and resistant to what I am saying as a Christian no matter how polite, caring, kind, etc. I have been. I have been mocked for my beliefs many times. Usually, it does not bother me too much. I try and stick to the argument at hand most of the time. Does that mean that I am never upset at what someone says about me? I would be lying if I said I never get upset at people being hostile towards what I believe when in fact I try my best not to mock other people's beliefs or belittle them or whatever other negative thing that makes it personal.

It's unfortunate that past experiences have conditioned you to expect hostility for sharing your beliefs. People who are not of Christian faith (or even of any faith) have also been conditioned to brace for hostility and condemnation from those who have beliefs in opposition to theirs. That's all to say - you're not alone in that expectation; it's something people get pretty heated about and feel strongly about. Makes it harder to talk/listen if everyone's walking on eggshells by default. That said, if you experience anyone insulting your beliefs here (refer to the forum rules page) - you can report those posts for mods to look into.

This forum is not very active these days (things change, people age & have other things going on IRL - also bite-sized social media platforms have become more convenient/popular compared to long-form communications), so you may not always get a lot of traction in discussions like these due to sample size alone. If it is something you feel the need to share with the world at large, you may find a larger, more receptive audience on more popular platforms or forums specifically related to this subject. Not saying you're forbidden to share these thoughts here. I hope you also engage in other discussions outside this topic too, to build community rapport, as that helps quite a bit with people being more open to values-based discussion or simply knowing how to best approach you.

 

[Quick]

It's unfortunate that past experiences have conditioned you to expect hostility for sharing your beliefs. People who are not of Christian faith (or even of any faith) have also been conditioned to brace for hostility and condemnation from those who have beliefs in opposition to theirs. That's all to say - you're not alone in that expectation; it's something people get pretty heated about and feel strongly about. Makes it harder to talk/listen if everyone's walking on eggshells by default. That said, if you experience anyone insulting your beliefs here (refer to the forum rules page) - you can report those posts for mods to look into.

This forum is not very active these days (things change, people age & have other things going on IRL - also bite-sized social media platforms have become more convenient/popular compared to long-form communications), so you may not always get a lot of traction in discussions like these due to sample size alone. If it is something you feel the need to share with the world at large, you may find a larger, more receptive audience on more popular platforms or forums specifically related to this subject. Not saying you're forbidden to share these thoughts here. I hope you also engage in other discussions outside this topic too, to build community rapport, as that helps quite a bit with people being more open to values-based discussion or simply knowing how to best approach you.

Just a clarification on my end. I am not here TO evangelize. I am here because this is a personality forum. Given my interests and beliefs, those will come out wherever I go. But I am on this particular site because it is a personality site. I've tried jumping in on some discussions, but you are right that it is a bit slow here.

 

[Quick]

but it does mean many people will not accept claims not rooted in modern science as universal truths. And that's okay, too.

This is true, unfortunately. Science cannot answer everything. As far as I am concerned, that is a fact. Science itself has to work with certain presuppositions to be valid. So you can't do a science experiment to prove that science is valid. And if you want any kind of purpose for your life, science cannot answer that either. Why? Science says what is. It does not say what we ought to do or why to do it. Some people would say you can reduce this to human flourishing or something. But that just kicks the can down the road. Why should we care about human flourishing? It's those pesky "Why" questions that science cannot answer, which I would argue are the most important kind of questions we can ask. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why is the world so messed up?" "What is the solution to why the world is so messed up?" Science cannot answer those kinds of questions.

 

[Haight]

Just one clarification. I might be coming at the facts from the PoV that affirm the Christian belief (such as Paul's encounter with Christ being something he experienced even though it does not show it is a fact it was actually Christ even though it is a fact that he experienced something he believed was Christ [see point 2]), but the prevailing narrative of what I have said for these facts is all bedrock facts according to relevant scholars. And you can disagree with the facts, but you are not a scholar in a relevant field.

I certainly agree with your clarification. Very open and honest and, therefore, very appreciated. I will be open and honest regarding your second point of ". . . not a scholar in the relevent field." While that is true, it's not quite as close to true as you might think it is. But that's beside the point, in my opinion. Reason being, it would not take much effort for someone to cite a "relevant scholar" that disagrees with your citations of a "relevant scholar." I think you would agree with that. And that is because of what I've mentioned before. Facts are elusive. And what we think are "facts," might not actually be so and can certainly turn into known and agreed upon myths and fictions in the future. That's just how time works and do to the fallibilities of our mostly lazy brains.

I will provide one example, although there are many. If someone tells me "I've seen it with my own two eyes," I don't necessarily consider that a fact. Why not? Because we are viewing a three-dimensional world with two dimensional lenses. Meaning, our eyes. Therefore, our brains have to make inferences and interpret the sensory data that it receives. That is true of all our senses. And our lazy brains tend to take shortcuts after receiving that information every second of every day. Yes, it's mostly accurate for the purposes we need. But it's innacurate a considerable amount of the time. In fact, the amount of time you are acting on an incorrect interpretation is rather disturbing. The fallibility of our memories is even worse. So, if you take just those two things into consideration, you would be much like me . . . unable to truly believe things as being as factual as presumed. Especially when Occman's Razor is always following directly behind me and you.

 

[Vendrah]

1st post

Well, thanks for creating a separate thread.

I "fear" or worry that you're going to create a gran sizeable mess if you push too hard for your "beliefs".
But I don't want to make the thread too much off, so i guess its what I have to say for now.

 

[Quick]

I certainly agree with your clarification. Very open and honest and, therefore, very appreciated. I will be open and honest regarding your second point of ". . . not a scholar in the relevent field." While that is true, it's not quite as close to true as you might think it is. But that's beside the point, in my opinion. Reason being, it would not take much effort for someone to cite a "relevant scholar" that disagrees with your citations of a "relevant scholar." I think you would agree with that. And that is because of what I've mentioned before. Facts are elusive. And what we think are "facts," might not actually be so and can certainly turn into known and agreed upon myths and fictions in the future. That's just how time works and do to the fallibilities of our mostly lazy brains.

I will provide one example, although there are many. If someone tells me "I've seen it with my own two eyes," I don't necessarily consider that a fact. Why not? Because we are viewing a three-dimensional world with two dimensional lenses. Meaning, our eyes. Therefore, our brains have to make inferences and interpret the sensory data that it receives. That is true of all our senses. And our lazy brains tend to take shortcuts after receiving that information every second of every day. Yes, it's mostly accurate for the purposes we need. But it's innacurate a considerable amount of the time. In fact, the amount of time you are acting on an incorrect interpretation is rather disturbing. The fallibility of our memories is even worse. So, if you take just those two things into consideration, you would be much like me . . . unable to truly believe things as being as factual as presumed. Especially when Occman's Razor is always following directly behind me and you.

Thanks for your post.

I am not really sure what you mean when you more or less say you are "close" to being a relevant scholar.

Could you find A scholar who disagrees with these facts? Yes, you could. But we are talking about 90%+ of scholars in a relevant field who will agree with all of these facts. Why do so many scholars agree with these facts? They are super highly evidenced by many lines of evidence so it is not practical to deny them. To put it another way, it is more common to find scholars who would be flat earthers than disagree with these facts (This only applies to people who deny Jesus was a historical person). I know you are getting that from me who you think is biased, but I am getting my info from Dr. Gary Habermas who frequently polls skeptic scholars on their beliefs. We are talking about scholars in history and the NT and philosophy of history and such.

As far as my own personal experience is concerned, what I wrote largely is based on a journal entry I wrote days after the event. So it is not really from memory.

 

[Quick]

Well, thanks for creating a separate thread.

I "fear" or worry that you're going to create a gran sizeable mess if you push too hard for your "beliefs".
But I don't want to make the thread too much off, so i guess its what I have to say for now.

I will try and only say things that I know to be true if that is any consolation.

 

[Haight]

Thanks for your post.

I am not really sure what you mean when you more or less say you are "close" to being a relevant scholar.

Could you find A scholar who disagrees with these facts? Yes, you could. But we are talking about 90%+ of scholars in a relevant field who will agree with all of these facts. Why do so many scholars agree with these facts? They are super highly evidenced by many lines of evidence so it is not practical to deny them. To put it another way, it is more common to find scholars who would be flat earthers than disagree with these facts (This only applies to people who deny Jesus was a historical person). I know you are getting that from me who you think is biased, but I am getting my info from Dr. Gary Habermas who frequently polls skeptic scholars on their beliefs. We are talking about scholars in history and the NT and philosophy of history and such.

As far as my own personal experience is concerned, what I wrote largely is based on a journal entry I wrote days after the event. So it is not really from memory.

He sounds like a good chap. But I haven't taken the time to research that person, specifically. So I will take your word for it. However, "Scholar" is loosely defined and often used incorrectly. So, you'll have to pardon me for being skeptical when I read or hear that word.

On another note, I find myself a bit surprised that you didn't comment on the second paragraph in my last post. But that's fine. It's just something to consider anyway.

 

[Haight]

Out of curiosity, do you believe in the existence of ghosts, partially "living" spirits, etc.?

 

[The Cat]

Out of curiosity, do you believe in the existence of ghosts, partially "living" spirits, etc.?

Disney Adults = Ghosts

 

[Quick]

On another note, I find myself a bit surprised that you didn't comment on the second paragraph in my last post. But that's fine. It's just something to consider anyway.

Right. I just disagree with you because what we experience is actually the best evidence that we personally have of something. Everything comes from our personal experience even if we read a peer-reviewed article on something. We have to trust our senses enough to believe what we are reading etc.

 

[Haight]

Of course. It's more cautionary. And in some cases, explanatory.

I will summarize, just for fun . . . most modern-day debates on the existence or non-existence of a superior being generally come down to one question. And this assumes the representative parties of such a debate are willing to spend the time and energy to see it to this end (I'm not, so I tend to "cut to the chase," as it were). And that question is, can something come from nothing?

 

[Quick]

can something come from nothing?

 

[Quick]

Out of curiosity, do you believe in the existence of ghosts, partially "living" spirits, etc.?

I believe in spirits, yes. Do I believe in dead people roaming the earth as spirits? Not really clear on how that would work out. I lean against that view. I think as the Apostle Paul says, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." However, I do believe that spirits can sometimes interact with the physical world. There is even a story from Samuel that King Saul saw Samuel after he had died. The world is a very strange place and I don't think I have all the answers. But, to me, denying the supernatural world is like denying oxygen exists.