Why (or why not) be Christian?

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing the "Will you make it to heaven?" threads started by @VincitVeritas which have become a more wide-ranging discussion about matters of faith, Christian belief.

Hope to see you on here when the last thread runs out of space! And new posters welcome too.

We've recently been discussing the evidence for God, the soul and life after death, and debating what constitutes reliable evidence in this context.

Also some talk about whether it's accurate to say humans are 'sinful' and why/why not, some discussion of Paul and the validity of his writings and status as an apostle, how the Bible was formed (and why other writings didn't make the canon) the basis of morality/ethics, whether Jesus's message was intended for an excusively Jewish audience, the meaning of Christ (or Messiah), church tradition and different denominations, end times and probably more I've forgotten!

Following on from this, how can you challenge what you don't understand or have any appreciation of?

To challenge is to critically question something, to more fully understand something.

So I will never blindly believe something, such as a God's existence without critically questioning it.

Of course there are many things I don't understand, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that.

This is indeed a debate asking why a person should or should not be a Christian. Thank goodness for debate - this is how we grow intellectually and otherwise, this is how we evolve and learn new things about others and the world around us. And you can’t shut down this conversation by insisting that this is not a debate, that you are not here to debate, but you are here to declare you faith. Good for you but this is your individual, subjective and personal truth, but its not mine.

And this most definitely a debate, thank goodness.

@heyhohello Faith could be used as a justification for believing literally anything, so you COULD believe in anything based on faith, I'm not saying you would.

Your existence is not proof of god. Your surviving stage 3 cancer is also not proof, depending on the cancer it is the most likely or even the ONLY likely outcome! I have survived things that kill other people, many people have it isn't proof of any world view.

And call this discussion what you like but it's still a discussion/debate whether you recognise it as one or not!

@Lalupalina

Of course there are many things I don't understand, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that.

And for those things you don't understand and don't have knowledge about are you happy to rely on the knowledge of others / have a working theory concerning them in order to move forwards? Are you happy to extrapolate likely outcomes in order to make decisions which will affect your future? All these actions require a faith / trust in something. The only difference is for me, is that I have overarching faith in the triune God.

So god is indistinguishable from something that does not exist, that is reason enough for me not to believe.

Faith could be used as a justification for believing literally anything, so you COULD believe in anything based on faith, I'm not saying you would.

@professorcunning, my faith falls within the confines of Christianity. So doesn't involve believing anything. For the latter you want to look towards those who believe they can 'manifest' anything they want.

Your existence is not proof of god

I didn't say my existence was 'proof' (as you are understanding proof).
See (again) my posts regarding proof...

That’s great but it doesn’t mean that for other people. Like I say just because you or others say it doesn’t make it true to me. As long as you are happy in your conviction, you don’t need to convince anyone of anything.

So god is indistinguishable from something that does not exist, that is reason enough for me not to believe.

@professorcunning, the point is you won't discern God unless purposely look for Him. Looking purposely involves wanting to find. God does not force people into a relationship with Him. We have free will. If you don't want a relationship with God life still moves on.

As long as you are happy in your conviction, you don’t need to convince anyone of anything.

@NotSoBetty, I am simply a witness to the Christian faith. Talking about it on here, as the thread asked. And that is what I am doing. If it convinces people all well and good. If not, that is their choice. It is information. And informed choices are usually regarded more highly than ignorant ones, are they not?

I was a Christian, I believed but then I grew up.

You say that you need faith, something I used to have, but then claim that you can discern god if you look for him. 1) I tried and did not find him 2) Where is the faith if you have discerned him?

I wanted a relationship with god but I can only assume that he didn't want one with me or he doesn't exist. I go for the second as I have never heard of a single good reason to believe.

@professorcunning so you lost your faith? Why was that?

Like @professorcunning I was also a Christian. God was the centre of my life, I believed he walked with me constantly. He showed himself to me many times. But then I realised that it was all wishful thinking. Obviously for you it is different and that's great if it helps you. But it wasn't that I didn't look for Him - I really did and he wasn't there.

Because I looked for god and didn't find any trace of him. I spent several years going to churches, reading the bible, talking to missionaries and religious people, looked into other religions too but none of it made any sense to me. I did ray and asked for some sort of sign, surely god would know what would convince me.

For a few years I didn't really think about it, it wasn't a part of my life. Then I was studying for a science degree with the OU and it just popped into my head, "Do I believe in god?" and I laughed and thought, of course not! I cannot force myself to believe in something I do not think is true.

Sorry, can you please clarify, what are these ignorant choices that you speak of? Is it a choice not to believe what you believe in?

@professorcunning & @Reallybadidea, what sort of signs would have convinced you?

@NotSoBetty I was talking about choice in general with relation to what this thread is about. Defending the validity in talking about my faith (rather than debate it) as this provides information regarding the choice to follow Christ.

@heyhohello "Debating is eristic, an intellectual pissing context born out of ego and the desire to win at something."

Wow. Courtesy and respect goes both ways......

Yesterday posters said they would believe in the existence of miracles is there was evidence of them. I posted two medical reports of instant miracles after prayer and those same believe still didn't believe them.

I think the only thing that would have convinced me is that if, once I'd stopped talking to God and having a 'relationship' with him, I'd noticed his absence in my life. But I didn't. So I concluded that he was never really there

By not agreeing with the “information” that you are providing, here, because I don’t believe it is the truth - that is an informed choice. To agree with what you say, without reserve, without questioning it, without looking into it properly, by accepting it as the “truth” just because you say is true, now that would be a completely ignorant choice. That would be making an uninformed choice. That would require me that have blind faith, so believe in something that does not require proof.

@CurlewKate, sorry, are you saying you debate in order to establish truth? If you are genuine in that I fully respect this and sincerely apologise.

However, the sad fact is that I don't believe the act of debating promotes truth. All too often it is simply those who are the most eloquent or those who are most well armed with pre existing supporting research whose points are validated in debate. Research is weaponised and deployed in an attempt to destroy arguments. It can go on forever as more and more conflicting research is retrieved up from the reserves and picked over. However the truth still exists beyond our knowledge of it.

And how can debate, really, apply to the unknowable and unprovable? How can you debate spirit which is non-material?

Debate employs evidence.

Sadly, this is very much how religion keeps its power, by actively and strongly discouraging any kind debate and alternative discourse, any questioning. You just have to believe, without any proof, and that’s it.

By not agreeing with the “information” that you are providing, here, because I don’t believe it is the truth - that is an informed choice.

@NotSoBetty, what specifically have I said that you disagree with? I have simply talked about my experience of the Christian faith. You don't know me, how can you disagree with me and what I have told you about my experience? Where is your evidence?

Sadly, this is very much how religion keeps its power, by actively and strongly discouraging any kind debate and alternative discourse, any questioning. You just have to believe, without any proof, and that’s it.

@NotSoBetty, wow! You ascribe so much power to me simply posting on here. This actually encourages me to carry on! 🙂

Remember, I have clearly presented my faith as being a choice, as in you can choose not to have faith. Although, since my experience of being within the Christian faith is, that choosing it is akin to choosing to love I would say it is not a choice in the classic sense rather a deeply felt conviction.