Lets cut to the chase: Why should I be a Christian?

[notachance]

If you're a theist and are active on a forum called "Debating Christianity & Religion", then you probably believe that the value of Christianity is something that can be spoken for.

So here is the situation: I don't want you to tell me why you believe. I understand that for many of you, it has to do with a feeling in your heart, or inexpressible faith, or something along those lines, which would be hard to verbalize and to formulate into a cogent case for Christianity. As respectable a that is, and as good a reason it may be for you to believe, it doesn't help me.

I want you to tell me why I should believe.

Given the fact that I don't share with you that emotional connection with Christianity, given that I don't feel the presence of Jesus in my heart like you do, given that I guide my decision making and my opinion forming by rationality and common sense, what can you tell me along those lines to persuade me that Christianity is the way to go?

Why should I be a Christian? What can you say to persuade me that what you believe is true?

[AquinasD]

no it does not. Christianity is non-sensical to the extreme. Exodus 20: Don't murder. Exodus 21: Murder your children. If that makes sense of the world to you, then I truly don't understand where you're coming from.

Well see? You want your world to be a simple place. Hence the absurd caricatures you make of Scripture.

A better case can be made for Bigfoot than can be made for Santa. So what? Are you saying that you believe in the absurd story of the resurrection because in your estimation it's slightly less absurd that other absurd stories? That's not reason enough!

No, that's not what I'm saying. This second reason goes in hand with the first reason, and my first reason finds suggests that there is a good reason God would be involved with creation to the point of establishing a religion.

Well, if we were discussing why I should believe that humans have 23 pairs of Chromosomes, you wouldn't be saying that.

That's because there is some objective truth to stuff like the number of chromosomes and the shape of the earth, and the chemical content of the sun, but no objective truth to Christianity.

No, that's not what is being said. There is objective truth to both Christianity and scientific propositions, but they are understood in different ways. If someone says "humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes," the method of verifying that is different from how you'd figure if "God is interested in humans" is true.

[notachance]

no it does not. Christianity is non-sensical to the extreme. Exodus 20: Don't murder. Exodus 21: Murder your children. If that makes sense of the world to you, then I truly don't understand where you're coming from.

Well see? You want your world to be a simple place. Hence the absurd caricatures you make of Scripture.

How is that a caricature? God spoke to Moses on top of a mountain. That's either true or not. If that is true, then what happened is that God told Moses a series of things he wanted him to do. The 6th thing he said is "Don't murder". The 13th thing he said is "Murder your children if they curse at you". How is simply reading back verbatim the literal words that God said to Moses a "caricature" of scripture?

A better case can be made for Bigfoot than can be made for Santa. So what? Are you saying that you believe in the absurd story of the resurrection because in your estimation it's slightly less absurd that other absurd stories? That's not reason enough!

No, that's not what I'm saying. This second reason goes in hand with the first reason, and my first reason finds suggests that there is a good reason God would be involved with creation to the point of establishing a religion.

Your first reason does NOT do that, and even if it did, you have no way of knowing if the religion that God might have wanted to establish is Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism or Satanism.

Well, if we were discussing why I should believe that humans have 23 pairs of Chromosomes, you wouldn't be saying that.

That's because there is some objective truth to stuff like the number of chromosomes and the shape of the earth, and the chemical content of the sun, but no objective truth to Christianity.

No, that's not what is being said. There is objective truth to both Christianity and scientific propositions, but they are understood in different ways.

Ok. Please outline the objective truth of Christianity.

If someone says "humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes," the method of verifying that is different from how you'd figure if "God is interested in humans" is true.

Ok, how do you verify that "God is interested in humans"?

[Slopeshoulder]

- It never makes sense to believe against all reason. So don't. no credible theologian expects that, but kierkegaard had some good things to say about it.
(FWIW I call that belief. But I call faith what we do when we commit to a pattern of life and thought that is supra-rational, because it just feels deeply right in a way that is inexpressable: like to music or one's spouse/partner or a place. NOT all decisions have evidence, not really. Reasons sure, but not proof or guarantees that we are right. We just live into it at a certain point, in absence of proof and guarantees.

Ok, but things like whether I love my wife or not, or whether I am moved by a piece of music, fit snugly with the concept you beautifully express with " a pattern of life and thought that is supra-rational, because it just feels deeply right in a way that is inexpressable". But what my wife's social security number is, or whether John Coltrane played the tenor Sax or the trombone, these things are not part of the realm of "that which you feel in your heart to be true in an inexpressible way". These are tangible objective facts. The fact that I "feel" that Coltrane played the trombone is NOT just as valid as the fact that you think he played the sax. For some things the "follow what's in your heart" model simply doesn't work.

Similarly, you might be moved when you look up at the Sistine Chapel, or when you sing in Church, or might feel the love of some generically defined "creator" when you look at a sunset. That's all fine. But there is no way around the fact that 9 months before Jesus was born Mary either had sex, or didn't.

So which one should I believe, and why?

- In making these faith commitments, we embrace a pattern of meaning and possibility. (See first point re: going where your fed). If the Christian pattern and possibility, the narrative, values, sensibility, language, comunity, concerns, goals, tradition, culture, etc, at their best, presented and considered in a way that is worthy of your smarts and soul, finally speak to you and pull you in more than other alternatives, go for it. Otherwise, and by all means, find whatever does, and live there within that.

Well, you're reducing Christianity to a philosophy. Are you then conceding that dogmatic concepts such as "heaven and hell" are in fact not real? I mean, you can only adopt your liberal and relaxed "anything goes as long as it works for you and you act like a good person" attitude, if you reject the notion that Christianity leads to heaven and everything else leads to hell. Without dogma, a religion becomes a philosophy.

FWIW, I personally affirm my identity as Christian because it is the culture, language, heritage, art, philosophy and godtalk that I know best, both through uprbringing and cutural context, and from deep immersion academically. For better or worse, it's who I am. And, of course, I have found it satisfying (IF supplemented by other perspectives from spiritual and secular cultures). I NEVER tire of mining its mythic meaning from art, literature, philosophy and culture - the light and dark, finite and infinite, transformation, justice, love, incarnation, inclusion, paradox, hope, etc etc. I tend to resonate more with various eastern, mystic, and existentialist versions of it; and I despise calvinism and assorted american non-mainstream protestant or hardcore roman versions of it. I don't buy a word of that fundy nonsense, biblically or doctrinally. Including and especially atonement theology, I prefer at-one-ment.

Well, I'l go out on a limb and assume that you would agree that Islam, atheism, Buddhism and any other worldview is potentially just as effective as your version of Christianity to get people to the point of inner peace that you seem to exhibit.

If that is the case, why don't you just stand up and straight up say "It is not true that Mary was a literal virgin. I base this claim on by understanding of Biology". That would be no less of a reasonable claim than "John Coltrane did not play the trombone, he played the saxophone".

So do what works. If you'll permit, if you're a professional improvizing musician, you've already "said yes to grace," as Rahner would say. And that's what matters. How you or I characterize it matters a lot less.

Well, sure as a musician I may have been in the brain state that some people describe as "grace". But that doesn't mean that the claim that "there literally was a great flood 6000 years ago" is not objectively false.

I really think that what you have is a personalized open-minded worldview/philosophy somewhat inspired by your Christian upbringing, but also greatly influenced by your secular education and your exposure to other philosophies. I don't want to risk going into "no true scotsman" territory, but I dunno if you're a Christian.

If the Bible is indeed the inalterable and inerrant word of God, than you are going to hell as much as I am.

In a hurry, so more later?
If you read some of my many posts you'll see I've have stood up repeatedly and recently to say that Mary was not a virgin. I deny historicity of all magical claims. (Check out my food fight with winepusher in the HH last month). And I don't think that this makes one Christian or not. If belief in literal magic is necessary, I prefer harry potter or the lord of the rings, or even his dark materials. I also deny biblical literalism and innerancy, and closed doctrine. Who are you arguing with? Not me.

And while I find that fundamentalists and hard athiests alike always seem to want to deny my status as a christian, I can assure you I am one if only by witnessing to the fact that every church I go to, every pastor, most congregants, most seminaries, most theologians, agree with me to a large extent. I'm hardly some lone freak making this stuff up. We're just not represented here and most tend to associate with other liberl educated elites, frankly. I guess I like to get my hands dirty. You can argue all day with the christianity you dislike, and I'll join in. But that's only one (visible, popular, problematic) version. The fact that this other version(s) that I'm into is invisible or inscrutable to you simply suggests that you can go read more, and you are wrong to reduce christianity to your preferred real/straw man - fundamentalism. To say that Xty must be fundamentalist/literal or a reduced philosophy is a false either-or. Remember, I LEARNED all this in seminaries and from mainstream academic publishing houses. My wife went to 6 of 'em and we agree on everything; she's even more liberal/educated/smart. You an say high to her here: cwww.michelelife.com. I tire of having to remind people of this, hard fundies and hard athiests alike. Seems to ruin their fun. She won't even go there, she hates this forum and wants me off it.

Laslty, for now, whatever peace I have is indeed inner - outwardly I'm big, loud, and as quick to anger as I am to laugh.

(PS: you picked up a Strymon Timeline yet?? you wanna hear god? get one!)

[AquinasD]

How is that a caricature? God spoke to Moses on top of a mountain. That's either true or not. If that is true, then what happened is that God told Moses a series of things he wanted him to do. The 6th thing he said is "Don't murder". The 13th thing he said is "Murder your children if they curse at you". How is simply reading back verbatim the literal words that God said to Moses a "caricature" of scripture?

It's an oversimplification. The explanation is complex.

Your first reason does NOT do that, and even if it did, you have no way of knowing if the religion that God might have wanted to establish is Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism or Satanism.

No, you misread me. I was not saying "philosophy therefore God!" but that my philosophy, as I have developed it, includes the truth that God is interested in humans.

Ok. Please outline the objective truth of Christianity.

Uhm. Christianity. That's the objective truth of Christianity?

What do you mean "outline?" It's a rather vague demand.

Ok, how do you verify that "God is interested in humans"?

You do philosophy.

[Zzyzx]

.

How is that a caricature? God spoke to Moses on top of a mountain. That's either true or not. If that is true, then what happened is that God told Moses a series of things he wanted him to do. The 6th thing he said is "Don't murder". The 13th thing he said is "Murder your children if they curse at you". How is simply reading back verbatim the literal words that God said to Moses a "caricature" of scripture?

It's an oversimplification. The explanation is complex.

Okay. Try the complex "explanation" (or excuse as the case may be). Perhaps some here are capable of following a complex discussion -- if it makes sense.

Ok. Please outline the objective truth of Christianity.

Uhm. Christianity. That's the objective truth of Christianity?

What do you mean "outline?" It's a rather vague demand.

Okay. Kindly present the "objective truth" of Christianity in as much detail as you choose to muster.

[Janx]

FWIW, I personally affirm my identity as Christian because it is the culture, language, heritage, art, philosophy and godtalk that I know best, both through uprbringing and cutural context, and from deep immersion academically. For better or worse, it's who I am. And, of course, I have found it satisfying (IF supplemented by other perspectives from spiritual and secular cultures). I NEVER tire of mining its mythic meaning from art, literature, philosophy and culture - the light and dark, finite and infinite, transformation, justice, love, incarnation, inclusion, paradox, hope, etc etc. I tend to resonate more with various eastern, mystic, and existentialist versions of it; and I despise calvinism and assorted american non-mainstream protestant or hardcore roman versions of it. I don't buy a word of that fundy nonsense, biblically or doctrinally. Including and especially atonement theology, I prefer at-one-ment.

So do what works. If you'll permit, if you're a professional improvizing musician, you've already "said yes to grace," as Rahner would say. And that's what matters. How you or I characterize it matters a lot less.

Very good post sir. Cheers to you.

[AquinasD]

Okay. Try the complex "explanation" (or excuse as the case may be). Perhaps some here are capable of following a complex discussion -- if it makes sense.

Such a discussion with you about that topic simply isn't possible. There are some assumptions in your worldview that simply wouldn't allow you to perceive the meaning of individual thoughts as they are arranged in my system. There's also my continual worry that to anything I say you will just pull a "Okay, now how can you verify that" with the smug presumption that of course I can't, because you're making fundamental category mistakes which you won't attend to because you already think you've won the argument.

I don't mean this as an aside to obscure the issue, but I only wish to note why I don't think it'd be as worthwhile to attempt this discussion yet before attending to that lingering scientism of yours. If you don't mind, I would like to make a thread to discuss the problems I see with your scientistic/verificationistic standard.

[Flail]

If you're a theist and are active on a forum called "Debating Christianity & Religion", then you probably believe that the value of Christianity is something that can be spoken for.

So here is the situation: I don't want you to tell me why you believe. I understand that for many of you, it has to do with a feeling in your heart, or inexpressible faith, or something along those lines, which would be hard to verbalize and to formulate into a cogent case for Christianity. As respectable a that is, and as good a reason it may be for you to believe, it doesn't help me.

I want you to tell me why I should believe.

Given the fact that I don't share with you that emotional connection with Christianity, given that I don't feel the presence of Jesus in my heart like you do, given that I guide my decision making and my opinion forming by rationality and common sense, what can you tell me along those lines to persuade me that Christianity is the way to go?

Why should I be a Christian? What can you say to persuade me that what you believe is true?

I can't think of any reason to recommend an un-evidenced indoctrinated superstition.

[Zzyzx]

.

Okay. Try the complex "explanation" (or excuse as the case may be). Perhaps some here are capable of following a complex discussion -- if it makes sense.

Such a discussion with you about that topic simply isn't possible.

I accept that you are incapable of presenting the "complex explanation" for READERS to consider and evaluate.

There are some assumptions in your worldview that simply wouldn't allow you to perceive the meaning of individual thoughts as they are arranged in my system.

You have absolutely NO idea what constitutes my "worldview", perceptions, and individual thought. Therefore, you are doing nothing more than making excuses.

There's also my continual worry that to anything I say you will just pull a "Okay, now how can you verify that" with the smug presumption that of course I can't, because you're making fundamental category mistakes which you won't attend to because you already think you've won the argument.

I have no interest in winning arguments with you or anyone else. Instead, I present ideas for READERS to consider and ask questions that you (generic term) cannot or will not answer because to do so would discredit your "argument".

I don't mean this as an aside to obscure the issue, but I only wish to note why I don't think it'd be as worthwhile to attempt this discussion yet before attending to that lingering scientism of yours.

My "lingering" scientific orientation is a lifetime activity that involved teaching university science classes. I'll put it up against supernaturalism any time (and have done so regularly for years in these threads).

If you don't mind, I would like to make a thread to discuss the problems I see with your scientistic/verificationistic standard.

Feel free to personalize discussions when you cannot debate the ideas -- as my signature says.

[Flail]

- It never makes sense to believe against all reason. So don't. no credible theologian expects that, but kierkegaard had some good things to say about it.
(FWIW I call that belief. But I call faith what we do when we commit to a pattern of life and thought that is supra-rational, because it just feels deeply right in a way that is inexpressable: like to music or one's spouse/partner or a place. NOT all decisions have evidence, not really. Reasons sure, but not proof or guarantees that we are right. We just live into it at a certain point, in absence of proof and guarantees.

Ok, but things like whether I love my wife or not, or whether I am moved by a piece of music, fit snugly with the concept you beautifully express with " a pattern of life and thought that is supra-rational, because it just feels deeply right in a way that is inexpressable". But what my wife's social security number is, or whether John Coltrane played the tenor Sax or the trombone, these things are not part of the realm of "that which you feel in your heart to be true in an inexpressible way". These are tangible objective facts. The fact that I "feel" that Coltrane played the trombone is NOT just as valid as the fact that you think he played the sax. For some things the "follow what's in your heart" model simply doesn't work.

Similarly, you might be moved when you look up at the Sistine Chapel, or when you sing in Church, or might feel the love of some generically defined "creator" when you look at a sunset. That's all fine. But there is no way around the fact that 9 months before Jesus was born Mary either had sex, or didn't.

So which one should I believe, and why?

- In making these faith commitments, we embrace a pattern of meaning and possibility. (See first point re: going where your fed). If the Christian pattern and possibility, the narrative, values, sensibility, language, comunity, concerns, goals, tradition, culture, etc, at their best, presented and considered in a way that is worthy of your smarts and soul, finally speak to you and pull you in more than other alternatives, go for it. Otherwise, and by all means, find whatever does, and live there within that.

Well, you're reducing Christianity to a philosophy. Are you then conceding that dogmatic concepts such as "heaven and hell" are in fact not real? I mean, you can only adopt your liberal and relaxed "anything goes as long as it works for you and you act like a good person" attitude, if you reject the notion that Christianity leads to heaven and everything else leads to hell. Without dogma, a religion becomes a philosophy.

FWIW, I personally affirm my identity as Christian because it is the culture, language, heritage, art, philosophy and godtalk that I know best, both through uprbringing and cutural context, and from deep immersion academically. For better or worse, it's who I am. And, of course, I have found it satisfying (IF supplemented by other perspectives from spiritual and secular cultures). I NEVER tire of mining its mythic meaning from art, literature, philosophy and culture - the light and dark, finite and infinite, transformation, justice, love, incarnation, inclusion, paradox, hope, etc etc. I tend to resonate more with various eastern, mystic, and existentialist versions of it; and I despise calvinism and assorted american non-mainstream protestant or hardcore roman versions of it. I don't buy a word of that fundy nonsense, biblically or doctrinally. Including and especially atonement theology, I prefer at-one-ment.

Well, I'l go out on a limb and assume that you would agree that Islam, atheism, Buddhism and any other worldview is potentially just as effective as your version of Christianity to get people to the point of inner peace that you seem to exhibit.

If that is the case, why don't you just stand up and straight up say "It is not true that Mary was a literal virgin. I base this claim on by understanding of Biology". That would be no less of a reasonable claim than "John Coltrane did not play the trombone, he played the saxophone".

So do what works. If you'll permit, if you're a professional improvizing musician, you've already "said yes to grace," as Rahner would say. And that's what matters. How you or I characterize it matters a lot less.

Well, sure as a musician I may have been in the brain state that some people describe as "grace". But that doesn't mean that the claim that "there literally was a great flood 6000 years ago" is not objectively false.

I really think that what you have is a personalized open-minded worldview/philosophy somewhat inspired by your Christian upbringing, but also greatly influenced by your secular education and your exposure to other philosophies. I don't want to risk going into "no true scotsman" territory, but I dunno if you're a Christian.

If the Bible is indeed the inalterable and inerrant word of God, than you are going to hell as much as I am.

In a hurry, so more later?
If you read some of my many posts you'll see I've have stood up repeatedly and recently to say that Mary was not a virgin. I deny historicity of all magical claims. (Check out my food fight with winepusher in the HH last month). And I don't think that this makes one Christian or not. If belief in literal magic is necessary, I prefer harry potter or the lord of the rings, or even his dark materials. I also deny biblical literalism and innerancy, and closed doctrine. Who are you arguing with? Not me.

And while I find that fundamentalists and hard athiests alike always seem to want to deny my status as a christian, I can assure you I am one if only by witnessing to the fact that every church I go to, every pastor, most congregants, most seminaries, most theologians, agree with me to a large extent. I'm hardly some lone freak making this stuff up. We're just not represented here and most tend to associate with other liberl educated elites, frankly. I guess I like to get my hands dirty. You can argue all day with the christianity you dislike, and I'll join in. But that's only one (visible, popular, problematic) version. The fact that this other version(s) that I'm into is invisible or inscrutable to you simply suggests that you can go read more, and you are wrong to reduce christianity to your preferred real/straw man - fundamentalism. To say that Xty must be fundamentalist/literal or a reduced philosophy is a false either-or. Remember, I LEARNED all this in seminaries and from mainstream academic publishing houses. My wife went to 6 of 'em and we agree on everything; she's even more liberal/educated/smart. You an say high to her here: cwww.michelelife.com. I tire of having to remind people of this, hard fundies and hard athiests alike. Seems to ruin their fun. She won't even go there, she hates this forum and wants me off it.

Laslty, for now, whatever peace I have is indeed inner - outwardly I'm big, loud, and as quick to anger as I am to laugh.

(PS: you picked up a Strymon Timeline yet?? you wanna hear god? get one!)

You are fortunate to live where you do and among educated and enlightened people. I am well read and understand and appreciate your philosophical and agnostic approach to Christianity. Unfortunately, however, I live on the moon. All I have is the internet and my library. I will see Bubba today at the store. If I mention your ideas to him...he may shoot me in the name of the 'Lord.' Please help us.