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?

[notachance]

Well, ignorance is bliss.

Yes. To you ignorance is bliss. To me knowledge is bliss.

That's why you're a theist and I'm an atheist.

[catalyst]

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?

Crikey notachance, as an EX-xian, perhaps you would like to know why I no longer am? (and that also goes to former xians as to why THEY no longer are)

Perhaps it should be a new thread rather than replying here? I am not sure.. but the info provided BY ex-xians either way, may be interesting, don't you think?

Catalyst.

[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?

Crikey notachance, as an EX-xian, perhaps you would like to know why I no longer am? (and that also goes to former xians as to why THEY no longer are)

Perhaps it should be a new thread rather than replying here? I am not sure.. but the info provided BY ex-xians either way, may be interesting, don't you think?

Catalyst.

I'd be delighted to hear about it Catalyst. Whether here or on a new thread, is entirely up to you.

[Darias]

Well, ignorance is bliss.

Yes. To you ignorance is bliss. To me knowledge is bliss.

That's why you're a theist and I'm an atheist.

One cannot definitively and objectively prove or know anything relating to God/gods. In my opinion, both the Theist and the Atheist derive pleasure from certainty in their views, whereas the Agnostic is content in his own realization of not-knowing.

[notachance]

Well, ignorance is bliss.

Yes. To you ignorance is bliss. To me knowledge is bliss.

That's why you're a theist and I'm an atheist.

One cannot definitively and objectively prove or know anything relating to God/gods. In my opinion, both the Theist and the Atheist derive pleasure from certainty in their views, whereas the Agnostic is content in his own realization of not-knowing.

I am an agnostic atheist. That means I do NOT know if God's exist. I most definitely do not claim certainty in my views.

I just tend not to operate under the assumption that things which haven't been demonstrated to exist, exist.

That's all.

What you should have said is "both the GNOSTIC Theist and the GNOSTIC Atheist derive pleasure from certainty in their views, whereas the Agnostic is content in his own realization of not-knowing".

I an only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people here consider themselves agnostic, whether they are theists or atheists.

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

When Jesus came he established a religion which was designed to use me against myself to get his desired results...without me there can be no thee.. Jesus is alive and living in ME which is his sole design....to make me a new creature in Him, which makes ME better off, causing ME to find contentment in ETERNAL LIFE !
which will make OTHERS better off with my own testimony of his resurrection which is true..


By the way comforting me is a very big thing with Jesus..it is by the comforter that I know him; as he promised..in John 14:6 saying, and I will pray the Father and he will give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive..

Be advised, this is still simply preaching. In order to debate, you need to make arguments that do not require others to either know you off-line or to have a religious experience in order to verify.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[samuelbb7]

So your supposition is that none of the rest of the book was written until 300 AD. That the Jews of the surrounding area carried only parts of the book of Daniel around until a Christian scribe wrote it for them in 300 AD.

I do not think I can agree to that as a supposition. You admit that parts of the book of Daniel were around in 250 BC. But then somehow in some way the rest of the book did not exist. I do not see any justification for that assumption.

Nor do I see any reason to believe that the jews copied portions of their books from the Christians. When you compare the books of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the Jewish Tanak they are in 95% agreement with the copies that they have from about 500 AD that they wrote as copies. They kept copying the old books over and over again. Not changing them just copying them. Many scholars used to suggest that they had been written latter or miscopied. But the Dead Sea scrolls caused most scholars to admit that the jews had kept accurate copies of their scripture.

But now you say they did not and had to copy Christian writers. Could you tell me why?

I thank you for the website. It shows that many portions of Daniel were accurately copied by Jewish scribes down through the ages. My belief is they copied all of it accurately. I especially enjoyed the comments about showing the actual ancient origin of the document and how it disproved many of the critics. I am saving this website to show how the Daniel prophecy is before the events.

Thank you again.

[notachance]

But the Dead Sea scrolls caused most scholars to admit that the jews had kept accurate copies of their scripture.

That is patently false.

From "The Oxford Companion to Archaeology":

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content.

Read that nice and slow. What kind of differences were there between DSS and older copies of Exodus and Samuel? Were they minor differences? Were they considerable differences? Were they significant differences?

NO

They were DRAMATIC differences!

Were they just differences in language? NO

They were dramatic differences both in language AND content.

Got that? Dramatic differences both in language and content, between the Dead Sea Scrolls and later manuscripts.

If you dispute this, please take it up with the Oxford Archeological Society.

FACT: Some sections almost identical, other sections dramatically different.

I thank you for the website. It shows that many portions of Daniel were accurately copied by Jewish scribes down through the ages.

No it does not. It shows that fragments of Daniel existed around 50 BC. There is no evidence that they are accurate copies of either earlier or later manuscripts.

My belief is they copied all of it accurately.

You're entitled to your religious beliefs. But if you claim that your beliefs are grounded in reality and are true, you will have to show evidence for your claim.

I am saving this website to show how the Daniel prophecy is before the events.

Cool, so you're going to use a website that shows that Daniel 2:31-46 is NOT present in the DSS to show that it is present.

Interesting.

What's next, are you going to use photos of Earth from outer space to demonstrate that the earth is flat?

So your supposition is that none of the rest of the book was written until 300 AD. That the Jews of the surrounding area carried only parts of the book of Daniel around until a Christian scribe wrote it for them in 300 AD.

That is a gigantic red herring. That is a red herring the size of the Titanic. That is a red herring so big that it eats whales for breakfast. That is a red herring so big that if you launched it into orbit it would cause a solar eclipse.

Listen closely Sam: OF COURSE I'M NOT SAYING THAT! If I said that, I'd be an idiot.

OF COURSE the earlier books of Daniel contained more than just the DSS fragments we recovered. OF COURSE, OF COURSE, OF COURSE!

This is all I am saying: We cannot verify that the earlier fragments of Daniel 2:31-46 (which we don't have) were IDENTICAL to the 350 AD ones (which we do have).

The only "prophecy" we have was written after the event, therefore it's not a prophecy.

Now, if you want to believe out of FAITH that a book that doesn't exist contains words nobody's ever seen, that's fine. You're entitled to your religious beliefs.

But please don't try to convince me that there is good rational reasons to believe that.



Look, if you're still confused, I'll give you a really simple analogy. Please pay close attention.

Imagine today, Sept 8th 2011, I wrote this:

Barack Obama will win the 2008 elections for sure because McCain is going to be hurt by his voting records' alignment with Bush (who's very unpopular) and because given McCain's age, there is a good chance Palin might become president, and her incompetence scares most voters. I predict Obama will get 66,862,039 votes, and McCain will get 58,319,442. Obama is going to be the first black President

Again, imagine I wrote this TODAY. 3 years after that election.

Also, imagine we found a fragment of something I wrote in september 2008, 2 months before the election. Imagine that it said this:

Barack Obama will win the 2008 elections for sure because McCain is going to be hurt by his voting records' alignment with Bush (who's very unpopular) and because given McCain's age, there is a good chance Palin might become president, and her incompetence scares most voters. I predict Obama will get .....[illegible fragment]......... Obama is going to be the first black President

So the fragment from BEFORE the event and the fragment from AFTER the event are almost identical, the only difference is that the 2008 fragment is missing the exact number of votes.

Now, there are two explanations for this situation:

1) I added the number of votes to the original at some point in 2011, while copying the original 2008 fragment.

2) I have magical powers that allow me to predict in advance how many people will vote for each candidate.

Now, what rational reason is there for disbelieving the first explanation and believing the second?

[samuelbb7]

Dear Nota chance

I am sorry for taking so long to reply and for this incomplete reply but my life has been extremely busy.

On the difference in Exodus and I Samuel that you mention which is only two books out of all the old testament.

The differences I have found are the Song of Miriam, the misspelling of some words, some number variations and names. The book of Samuel was misspellings, number variations and some names.

I believe that George Lucas changed Star Wars more then this. They affect no doctrine or teaching of the church.

Now a portion of Daniel two that mentioned the dream was in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The passage speaks of the fall of the Roman Empire. That happened after 300 AD. So the addition had to be after the Bible that you admit is a copy that exist today.

When I have time I will be back with a more detailed answer.

Have a good day.

[Goat]

Dear Nota chance

I am sorry for taking so long to reply and for this incomplete reply but my life has been extremely busy.

On the difference in Exodus and I Samuel that you mention which is only two books out of all the old testament.

The differences I have found are the Song of Miriam, the misspelling of some words, some number variations and names. The book of Samuel was misspellings, number variations and some names.

I believe that George Lucas changed Star Wars more then this. They affect no doctrine or teaching of the church.

Now a portion of Daniel two that mentioned the dream was in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The passage speaks of the fall of the Roman Empire. That happened after 300 AD. So the addition had to be after the Bible that you admit is a copy that exist today.

When I have time I will be back with a more detailed answer.

Have a good day.

I challenge your claim that the passage in Daniel 2 mentioned the fall of the Roman empire. Prove it.