Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

[Divine Insight]

In another thread a Christian attempted to belittle me for having once believed in the religion only to discover later than the religion is false. His implication was that if I would change my mind concerning major life decisions like this then I can't be very credible. (the old: Discredit your debate opponent tactic)

So I've decided to put the question to Christians:

1. Does Christianity dictate your major life decisions?

2. And if so, how would you choose to live differently if you weren't a Christian?

Debate Questions:

If a Christian claims that they would live their life differently if they weren't a Christian, doesn't this imply that they aren't being true to themselves when living life as a Christian?

Also, wouldn't the manner they would choose to live their lives, if not a Christian, reveal who they truly are at the core of their character?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 58 by Divine Insight]

I only went top church on Sundays because that's all that is required by our church.

My friend, for most folks, the decision to become a Christian would be a major life decision, especially for those who claim to have embraced it with all their hearts as an adult, because it effects, almost every aspect of one's life.

In other words, when one makes such a decision, they usually attend Church every time the doors would be open, if at all possible, spend time in prayer, reading the Bible, Sunday school, and other Church related activities. So then, it is difficult to imagine someone claiming that their decision to do these sort of things, would not be a major life decision, when they would never participate in such things, if they had not made such a decision.

Also what does going to church have to do with believing in Jesus? Where did Jesus ever tell anyone to go to church?

I did not say a thing about "going to Church" having anything in the world to do with, "believing in Jesus". Rather, I was asking as to whether this would have been something you did, when you were convinced that Christianity was true? If you did in fact attend Church as one of the requirements to be a Christian, how would this have anything to do with me somehow suggesting that, "to believe in Jesus you must attend Church"? I have never suggested such a thing, and the fact of the matter is, I as a Christian, have not attended Church in years.

Yes, I prayed to God. And my prayers were always for the help and well-being of others. I never prayed to God to provide me with anything personal. Why would I do that?

What in the world would what you prayed for, have to do with it? The question is, do you pray now? If not, then this sort of demonstrates, that what you were convinced of, effected your behavior, and also demonstrates, the major decision it would be, because I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that praying to a God, one has been convinced of, would not involve a major life decision?

False assumption on your part. I actually spent a lot of time studying the Bible and saw a lot of contradictory things which I brought to the attention of the Pastors and Bible Study Teachers. They could never explain these contradictions away but instead would just say, "We need to have faith that God has the answers". So apparently even they could not resolve these theological contradiction

This does not sound like one who would have been "fully convinced". So which argument would you like to use? Was it that you were fully convinced Christianity was true? Or, was it that you had doubts all along?

If you say you, "had doubts all along" then we have no argument, because my argument is with those who are claiming they were fully convinced Christians, and truly embraced Christianity with all their heart. However, it seems sort of late for this, since you have already admitted to taking the word of your parents, and others.

I will also point out that I believe you have suggested that you would have been done with Christianity by 20 years old? If this is the case, we have no argument, because I am speaking of those who claim to have embraced Christianity to be true, well into their adult life, or became a Christian, as an adult. So then, if you were done with Christianity by the age of 20, then I will accept that as an acceptable age. However, there are a number of former Christians who claim to have carried the belief well into their adulthood, and, or, became a Christian, as an adult.

Yes, actually I did. But our particular church was not into evangelism and didn't even believe in it.

You continue to attempt to make excuses here, that would have nothing to do with it. If these are things you did as a convinced Christian, that you no longer participate in, then this certainly demonstrates that it is a major life decision.

Basically none. Humanitarian missions that the church might engage in are not "Church Activities", they are simply humans helping humans. I'll be glad to help my fellow humans out even today. No religion required.

All you are attempting to do here is to suggest that Christianity did not have much affect upon your life, in order to demonstrate that it was not a major life decision for you. However, even if this would be the case, this is not common for the overwhelming majority of those who have made the decision to become a Christian, because for the overwhelming majority of those who decide to become Christian, it has an effect upon almost every area of their life.

So then, I am beginning to wonder, exactly how convinced were you? Because you see, I am referring to those who claim they were thoroughly convinced, for a good portion of their adult life, and, or, became thoroughly convinced, as an adult, to the point it had the sort of affect that I am describing.

I didn't have any income to give when I was a child.

Here you certainly seem to be suggesting that you were not a convinced adult, and if this is the case, we have no argument. Again, my argument is with those who claim to have been thoroughly convinced, well into their adult life, and, or made the decision as an adult, to the point that it affected many aspects, of their life.

Also, you appear to be talking about supporting some specific Christendom organization. That's not Christianity. Jesus told people to give to the poor, not to give to churches.

I have always given to the poor, even after I discovered that Christianity is false. I like helping people out who are less fortunate than myself. You don't need to be a Christian to do that.

Again, this has nothing to do with it. The question is, is one giving their money to the Church, and if so, how would this not be a major life decision, when one would not do this sort of thing, if they had not made such a decision. How many folks give money to the Church, who have not made a decision to become a Christian, and the fact that you now contribute to the poor, without giving to the Church demonstrates my point.

Not for me it wasn't. In fact, I most likely would have stopped going to church even if I had ultimately been convinced that Christianity was true.

Umm? You mean, just like I have? But more importantly, this is not the point! The point is, the folks I am speaking of, made the decision to become a Christian, and claim that all these things we are talking about, were things they were doing, which demonstrates, that for the overwhelming majority of folks, this decision has a major impact, on how they live their life, and what it is they do, which demonstrates, that at least for them, it would be a major life decision.

Apparently you have dedicated yourself to a specific religious organization and you see that as being a major life decision. I would agree. But there's nothing in anything Jesus taught that even remotely suggested that you should waste your time in such a fashion.

This demonstrates that you are completely off the mark, because I am not a member of any Church, and have not attended in years. However, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of those who claim to have been convinced Christianity was true, to the point they decided to become a Christian, will say they attended Church. That is the point!

Oh, ok. So then you agree that the evidence for Christianity is pretty weak and open to possible refutation?

Again, you insist on adding words? If you take the "pretty weak" out, I would agree that it would be open to "possible refutation". The problem is, you are not doing a very good job.

Perhaps our entire conversation has then been for naught.

Apparently it's all a misunderstanding concerning what it means to be a "Christian".

You are so confused! It has nothing whatsoever to do with "what it MEANS to be a Christian." What is has to do with, is what those who claimed to have been convinced Christianity was true were claiming to be doing, whether it would be what it "MEANS to be a Christian", or not. In other words, this would be things those who claim to have truly embraced Christianity were doing with their lives, which sort of demonstrates it would have been a major life decision for them, and they want us to believe that it was a major life decision, which is part of the point. In other words, they want folks to know just how convinced they were, and to demonstrate this, they point to the affect it had upon their life. You take up a lot of space talking about things that have nothing to do with the conversation.

So yes, in that case I totally agree with you. Deciding to join a specific Church organization and doing everything they tell you to do would indeed be a major life decision.

EXACTLY! And this is what these folks want us to know about them. They want us to know they were convinced Christians, and to demonstrate just how convinced they were, they tell us they were behaving just as a "good Christian" should, which again, is part of their point.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 59 by brunumb]

You are not taking into account the fact that religious beliefs are propagated from one generation to the next by indoctrination of children, not through any rational analysis of evidence.

I am taking that into consideration, but I am also taking into consideration that these folks grow into adults with minds of their own, and you act as if the parents have some sort of control over their minds as an adult?

Next, when you use the word, "indoctrination" exactly what do you mean? Do you have in mind simply the teaching of doctrine? Would it be to teach folks not to think critically about what they have been taught? Would it be something like brainwashing?

Because you see, I am continually being accused of having been "indoctrinated" by folks here on this site, and the only way this could apply to me is if it would be in the context of, the teaching of doctrine. I certainly was not encourage not to think critically. Nor was I brainwashed in any way. The point is, some folks use this word, and it would not entail being, forced to believe, nor anything to do with not thinking critically. And again, how this sort of thing goes well into adulthood, is beyond my imagination?

It has been that way for thousands of years in all religions.

Right? As if Christians are force feeding this information into the minds of their children, hoping to brainwash them from ever asking questions.

Children accept what they are told on trust and communities are held together by shared beliefs.

Correct, and then they grow up, and by the time of the early teenage years, they learn their parents, and pastors are not perfect, and have made many errors, and they tend to start to think for themselves, in order to determine what their own thinking tells them to believe.

Today, it is not enough for some people to rely on their immediate family so they send their children off to Bible camps and have them join specifically Christian youth groups to reinforce the message. Once the young, impressionable brains have been thoroughly saturated with the desired beliefs all that is needed are regular top-ups with regular attendance at church.

And then the young person grows up, and has a mind of their own, and is free to use it to think outside what they were taught as a child. Unless of course, you are talking about isolated situations. Because you see, I am fully aware of Christians who do this sort of thing, but as I have said, it would be very isolated, and there would be few who would be exposed to it.

Less benign reinforcement comes from the ever present threat of shunning or other such disincentives should any signs of wavering faith appear. It is a brave person that will risk losing all that alleged Christian love when they begin to see all the cracks in what it is they were told to believe was the truth.

I do not see it as being "brave" at all, but rather see it as being common sense not to simply take the word of others, no matter what the cost. I see it as being weak minded, not to question everything you were taught, no matter who has done the teaching, when one becomes of age.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 60 by Divine Insight]

How much of the world do you need to put down in order to convince yourself that you are the only person who makes sound choices?

Again, how am I "putting anyone down" by simply repeating what they say of themselves? In other words, there are those who claim to have been convinced Christianity to be true, only now to claim there would be no good reasons to believe what they were once convinced of? How is this an insult on my part?

You already confessed yourself that you do not have irrefutable evidence for the religion you have chosen to become a slave to. So you are in no position to be putting other Christians down.

Again, how can my simply repeating what they say, have anything in the world to do with "putting these folks down"?

Moreover, apparently you are the one who considers it to be a major handicap to become a slave to religion. I don't believe that was the case with my family. My mother enjoyed being a Christian very much and never considered it to be a burden. She enjoyed the social aspect of it and most likely would have continued to be a member of the club even if the club became secular in nature.

I have never once suggested that it would be any sort of "handicap" for these folks. In fact, there are those here on this site who claim they continue to wish they could continue to believe Christianity, because they enjoyed being a Christian. What I said was, "it was a major life decision". How would this translate into a "major handicap" is beyond my understanding?

If you see Christianity as a major burden, then you should consider joining a different Christian club.

Please explain how my saying, "major life decision" translates into, "major burden"?

[Divine Insight]

In other words, when one makes such a decision, they usually attend Church every time the doors would be open, if at all possible, spend time in prayer, reading the Bible, Sunday school, and other Church related activities. So then, it is difficult to imagine someone claiming that their decision to do these sort of things, would not be a major life decision, when they would never participate in such things, if they had not made such a decision.

All I see here is a person who has made the grave mistake of worshiping a church instead of a God. [/quote]

If you did in fact attend Church as one of the requirements to be a Christian

Even our church itself did not demand attendance, nor did it preach that attending it was a requirement to be a Christian.

So all you are doing here is trying to force the rest of the world to comply with your personal opinions of how you would like to define what a "Christian" must be and must do.

I will agree with you that for a person to be a "Christian" based on your demands of what that means, it would indeed be a quite burdensome decision to become one.

Fortunately you aren't the dictator of what it means to be a "Christian".

What in the world would what you prayed for, have to do with it? The question is, do you pray now? If not, then this sort of demonstrates, that what you were convinced of, effected your behavior, and also demonstrates, the major decision it would be, because I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that praying to a God, one has been convinced of, would not involve a major life decision?

Yes, I actually do still "pray" to the Gods. Although my praying is most likely in vain. I have about the same results as any theists have. There is little doubt that I would obtain the same results by praying to my cat.

By the way, you seem to have also fallen into the trap that many Christians fall into. And that is to assume that just because I discovered that Hebrew mythology is false, I instantly came to the conclusion that there must not be any God.

I did not jump to that illogical conclusion. Even to this very day I retain the romantic hope that there could be some mystical magical essence to reality.

So most of what you are doing is pushing your ideas and thoughts onto me. A place where they do not belong.

This does not sound like one who would have been "fully convinced". So which argument would you like to use? Was it that you were fully convinced Christianity was true? Or, was it that you had doubts all along?

Being the romantic that I am I had absolutely no doubts that the Bible was true and did indeed represent the "Word of God". I began my study of the Bible in earnest with the full expectation that after having studied it I would finally understand the truth of it and that I would be able to explain away all the apparent contradictions within it.

Of course, that expectation proved to be naive. It turns out that the Bible truly is self-contradictory to the extreme and there are no meaningful explanation within it for anything.

My eyes to the truth were then opened.

If you say you, "had doubts all along" then we have no argument

I never said that I had doubts. I simply saw were contradictions in the Bible and extremely lame or non-existent explanations being offered up to explain them away.

It doesn't follow from this that I had any doubts about the Bible. Perhaps the Bible itself could explain away these apparent contradictions? In fact, I was told that this was the case, and encouraged to read it for myself. So I did.

It's not my fault that the Bible ultimately revealed itself to be false.

I will also point out that I believe you have suggested that you would have been done with Christianity by 20 years old? If this is the case, we have no argument, because I am speaking of those who claim to have embraced Christianity to be true, well into their adult life, or became a Christian, as an adult.

In that case you have no argument with me at all.

You continue to attempt to make excuses here, that would have nothing to do with it. If these are things you did as a convinced Christian, that you no longer participate in, then this certainly demonstrates that it is a major life decision.

This is an absolutely false claim on your behalf. Doing a few minor things differently in my life hardly equates to a "Major Life Decision".

Again, you're trying hard to win an debate that you have already long since lost.

You're clearly scratching at the bottom of an empty barrel trying to make petty things become "Major Life Decisions". That's not going to work.

All you are attempting to do here is to suggest that Christianity did not have much affect upon your life, in order to demonstrate that it was not a major life decision for you.

It was never a major life decision for me. In fact, after I realized it was false there was nothing I needed to change. I even continued going to church with my mother. Why? Because she wanted my company. I've gone with her to other places that I would not go by my own choosing as well.

Is it a major life decision to decide to take my mother out to an event that she enjoys and I don't? I don't think so.

Again, you've already lost your argument. You may as well give it up.

Again, my argument is with those who claim to have been thoroughly convinced, well into their adult life,

And again, if that's the case then you have no argument with me.

The question is, is one giving their money to the Church, and if so, how would this not be a major life decision

For most people it's not a major decision at all since they typically only give petty change anyway. I seriously doubt that there are too many Christians who give the church so much of their money that it causes them to experience financial hardships in their own life.

Your arguments aren't realistic.

Do you give so much money to your church that this causes you to have financial difficulties in your personal life? If not, then how can you claim that you're making any major life decision by giving money to your church that has no major impact on your life?

Your argument aren't even making any sense.

You are desperate to claim that being a Christian is a BURDEN on you. But I'm willing to bet that later in your posts you we even argue that it's not. Contradicting your own claims.

This demonstrates that you are completely off the mark, because I am not a member of any Church, and have not attended in years.

Wait a minute!

Why then is being a Christian such a burden on your life?

Please explain how my saying, "major life decision" translates into, "major burden"?

If being a Christian doesn't put restraints on your choices in life, then how in the world can it be considered to be a "major life decision"?

In fact, this is a major point that has been brought up many times.

If a person is in complete harmony with the moral teachings of Jesus and gives Jesus their seal of approval in terms of morality. Then how can "following" the moral values of Jesus be a major decision in their life when all they need to do is be who they would have been anyway?

Your argument makes no sense.

If you want to claim that to become a Christian requires a "major life decision" then you need to show how a person would need to change their life in order to be a Christian.

I don't need to do anything to be like Jesus. When I read the Bible Jesus is the only character in it that I can even identify with. When I come to the New Testament I say, "Finally! Someone who thinks like me when it comes to moral behavior".

So Jesus is like me. I don't need to change anything to be like Jesus. And even though Christianity is clearly false I still just coincidentally happen to agree with the moral values attributed to Jesus.

It would be impossible for me to "follow" Jesus when he's already walking along beside me. No major life decisions required. Just being myself equates to being like Jesus.

The only theological question is whether Jesus was the virgin-born demigod Son of Yahweh sent to become our penal substitute to pay for our sins so Yahweh doesn't cast us into hell.

It turns out that this part of the theology is clearly false.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 64 by Divine Insight]

All I see here is a person who has made the grave mistake of worshiping a church instead of a God.

Even our church itself did not demand attendance, nor did it preach that attending it was a requirement to be a Christian.

So all you are doing here is trying to force the rest of the world to comply with your personal opinions of how you would like to define what a "Christian" must be and must do.

I will agree with you that for a person to be a "Christian" based on your demands of what that means, it would indeed be a quite burdensome decision to become one.

Fortunately you aren't the dictator of what it means to be a "Christian".

And all I see here is one who just can't seem to understand, that none of this has a thing in the word to do with this conversation! It has nothing to do with what I might be attempting to force on anyone. Rather, (and try to read carefully here) it has to do with what these folks, who claim to have been convinced Christianity was true were doing, when they claim to have been convinced.

Ergo, they, (not me) are telling us they were committed Christians, and in order to demonstrate just how committed they were, they refer to these things they were doing, in order to convince us all, just how committed to this belief they were, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it would have actually been a requirement, or not, and it certainly has nothing to do with me insisting that this is what they must do to "believe in Jesus" seeing as how, I do not attend Church myself.

How is this so difficult for you to understand? It has nothing to do with what I may insist. Rather, it has everything to do with what those who claim to have been convinced of, insist they were doing, in order to demonstrate just how convinced they were. Therefore, all you are doing here is to spin your wheels, while talking about things that would have nothing to do with the conversation.

Yes, I actually do still "pray" to the Gods. Although my praying is most likely in vain. I have about the same results as any theists have. There is little doubt that I would obtain the same results by praying to my cat.

By the way, you seem to have also fallen into the trap that many Christians fall into. And that is to assume that just because I discovered that Hebrew mythology is false, I instantly came to the conclusion that there must not be any God.

I did not jump to that illogical conclusion. Even to this very day I retain the romantic hope that there could be some mystical magical essence to reality.

So most of what you are doing is pushing your ideas and thoughts onto me. A place where they do not belong.

And here is another fine example. I could not care less who, or what you pray to now. The issue is who those who claim to have been convinced in the Christian God, claimed to have been praying to, in order to demonstrate that they once truly believed.

The whole point is, these folks, (not me) insist they were so convinced of this God, and in order to demonstrate this, they, (not me) tell us what all they were doing which would demonstrate just how convinced they were, only now to tell us, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they once were convinced of.

Being the romantic that I am I had absolutely no doubts that the Bible was true and did indeed represent the "Word of God". I began my study of the Bible in earnest with the full expectation that after having studied it I would finally understand the truth of it and that I would be able to explain away all the apparent contradictions within it.

Of course, that expectation proved to be naive. It turns out that the Bible truly is self-contradictory to the extreme and there are no meaningful explanation within it for anything.

My eyes to the truth were then opened.

All any of this does, is to demonstrate one who can be convinced of something to be true, without a whole lot of thinking involved, or some very reckless thinking. Ergo, what would cause us to believe that the thinking would be any better now?

I never said that I had doubts. I simply saw were contradictions in the Bible and extremely lame or non-existent explanations being offered up to explain them away.

It doesn't follow from this that I had any doubts about the Bible. Perhaps the Bible itself could explain away these apparent contradictions? In fact, I was told that this was the case, and encouraged to read it for myself. So I did.

It's not my fault that the Bible ultimately revealed itself to be false.

All this does is to demonstrate one who can hold contradictions in their mind, and continue to be convinced, without resolving these contradictions.

In that case you have no argument with me at all.

Which is exactly what I said. But this does not negate the fact that we have those who claim they were convinced Christianity would have been true, well into their adult life, and, or, made the decision to become a Christian as an adult, and now want to explain to us, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of.

Now, I don't care who you are, this demonstrates those who can become convinced of something, without a whole lot of thinking involved, and we are not talking about a minor mistake, but a major life decision to become a Christian, which for the majority of those who make this decision, it has a great impact on their entire life.

So then, the question would be, what would cause us to believe the thinking would be any better now?

This is an absolutely false claim on your behalf. Doing a few minor things differently in my life hardly equates to a "Major Life Decision".

Again, you're trying hard to win an debate that you have already long since lost.

You're clearly scratching at the bottom of an empty barrel trying to make petty things become "Major Life Decisions". That's not going to work.

As we seem to have just established, we have no argument. However, those who are claiming to have been convinced Christianity was true, well into their adult life, and. or made the decision as an adult, will insist that it was a major life decision, which is part of their point, in an attempt to demonstrate just how convinced they were, only to now tell us, they are just as convinced now that, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once so convinced of.

It was never a major life decision for me.

See above.

For most people it's not a major decision at all since they typically only give petty change anyway. I seriously doubt that there are too many Christians who give the church so much of their money that it causes them to experience financial hardships in their own life.

I do not know how to get this through your head? We are not talking about, "most people". Rather, we are talking about those who claim to have been convinced Christianity would have been true, well into their adult life, and to demonstrate this, they explain to us all the things they were doing, and one of those things would be to tithe, and I will assure you that this would be a major life decision, that would add up to a lot of money out of one's pocket over the years, and even if it does not cause any sort of financial difficulties, it would surely be a shame to understand the money one threw away to a cause which has deceived you for so many years, and continues to deceive others. So yeah, for these folks it was indeed a major life decision.

Wait a minute!

Why then is being a Christian such a burden on your life?

Again, how does "major life decision" (not even talking about myself here) translate into, "burden"?

If being a Christian doesn't put restraints on your choices in life, then how in the world can it be considered to be a "major life decision"?

Please try to get this through your head. It has nothing to do with me, or what I am doing, or saying, and has everything to do with those who are claiming to have been convinced Christianity was true, and what they claim to have been doing to demonstrate how convinced they were. You are wasting time, and space.

If a person is in complete harmony with the moral teachings of Jesus and gives Jesus their seal of approval in terms of morality. Then how can "following" the moral values of Jesus be a major decision in their life when all they need to do is be who they would have been anyway?

You and I have a completely different understanding of what it means to be a Christian, because it has nothing to do with, "following the moral teachings of Jesus" but this is completely off topic.

If you want to claim that to become a Christian requires a "major life decision" then you need to show how a person would need to change their life in order to be a Christian.

I will say this one more time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am claiming, but has everything to do with what those are claiming, who want to convince us they were truly convinced Christianity was true, and go on to talk about the major impact it had on them, and their life, in order to demonstrate just how convinced they were.

So then, it is not me who is claiming that it would be a major life decision, but I will say that for the vast majority of those who claim to be Christian, I would argue that they would believe it to be, a major life decision, which does impact most all areas of their life.

I don't need to do anything to be like Jesus. When I read the Bible Jesus is the only character in it that I can even identify with. When I come to the New Testament I say, "Finally! Someone who thinks like me when it comes to moral behavior".

So Jesus is like me. I don't need to change anything to be like Jesus. And even though Christianity is clearly false I still just coincidentally happen to agree with the moral values attributed to Jesus.

It would be impossible for me to "follow" Jesus when he's already walking along beside me. No major life decisions required. Just being myself equates to being like Jesus.

The only theological question is whether Jesus was the virgin-born demigod Son of Yahweh sent to become our penal substitute to pay for our sins so Yahweh doesn't cast us into hell.

It turns out that this part of the theology is clearly false.

Again, we have completely different understandings, but that would be a whole other debate.

[Bust Nak]

Ergo, what would cause us to believe that the thinking would be any better now?

Because they've shown enough intellectual integrity to admit that they were wrong, that they used to believe blindly? Shown enough to make a huge change and get out of their comfort zone? Shown that they have grown? Presumably the same reasons why conversion stories are so great at reinforcing the beliefs of the religious.

[Realworldjack]

Ergo, what would cause us to believe that the thinking would be any better now?

Because they've shown enough intellectual integrity to admit that they were wrong, that they used to believe blindly? Shown enough to make a huge change and get out of their comfort zone? Shown that they have grown? Presumably the same reasons why conversion stories are so great at reinforcing the beliefs of the religious.

I think you may have misunderstood the question? You see, the question had nothing to do with, how we can know if they may have "shown intellectual integrity", nor was it if we can know whether they "admit they were wrong" (which btw is yet to be determined), nor did it have a thing to do with whether we can know, they were "believing blindly", nor whether we can know if "they have grown"?

You see, none of these were the question at all. The question again was, "how can we know the thinking is any better now", than when they became convinced of something, so much so, they go on to tell us just how committed they were to this belief, by sharing with us, all the ways in which it impacted their lives, in order to demonstrate to us, just how convinced they were, only now to tell us, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of?

That is the question. In other words, they have demonstrated to us, they are the type of folks who can become convinced of something there would be no facts, and evidence to support. So then, what is it that would indicate to us the thinking would be any better? The fact that one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate that the thinking process is any better.

Presumably the same reasons why conversion stories are so great at reinforcing the beliefs of the religious.

Now, you are more than likely getting closer to the truth of the matter. Because you see, a "conversion story" is not any sort of proof, or even evidence of what the truth may be. However, if there are those who think in this way, and "conversion stories" were part of the equation that caused them to become convinced Christianity would be true, then it would not be all that shocking to find out that they are under the impression that their "experience" of having been a Christian, to rejecting Christianity, somehow would add credibility, when it does no such thing. Rather, what this tends to do, is to demonstrate that the mind has changed, but the thinking is still the same.

[Divine Insight]

And all I see here is one who just can't seem to understand, that none of this has a thing in the word to do with this conversation! It has nothing to do with what I might be attempting to force on anyone. Rather, (and try to read carefully here) it has to do with what these folks, who claim to have been convinced Christianity was true were doing, when they claim to have been convinced.

Your arguments amount to nothing more than a desperate attempt to discredit your debate opponent.

The problem with your argument is that even most clergy will openly confess that they not only believe on faith, but often have times when they find it difficult to keep the faith.

If you are trying to argue that the only sincere Christians are those who have been convinced by evidence then your argument is sorely lost. The overwhelming majority of Christians confess to believing on faith. Many even argue that it's the only way to go. A huge Christian apologetic argument is that believing on faith is paramount because being convinced by evidence would violate your free will choice to believe based on faith.

Even Jesus asked people, and clearly expected people, to believe on faith.

So your arguments can't even be supported by Christian theology, and they most certainly aren't supported by the Gospel rumors of Jesus who clearly expected people to believe on faith and not on evidence.

So you've lost this debate buddy. You're attempt to discredit me as having never been a "true believer" is nonsense.

And I never said that I had been convinced by "evidence".

If anything I has been convinced by lying adults. I believe them when they said it was true, when the real truth was that they clearly did not know whether it's true or not. They even openly confessed to this later in life when asked for an honest answer.

So you're arguments are dead. Even Jesus doesn't support your arguments.

Christianity doesn't ask anyone to believe on evidence.

The religion itself asks people to believe on faith.

Sorry that you are so upset that this is the basis of your favorite religion. But that's the way it is. Even Jesus asks you to believe on faith, not on evidence.

The problem is that the religion not only lacks evidence, but the evidence that it can't possibly be true is overwhelming. So it actually takes a huge amount of faith in spite of the obvious evidence against it to continue to believe in it.

Perhaps this is what you are doing and why you see this as a major decision in life? Believing in something that has no evidence would indeed be a major decision to make, especially if you take that to mean that you need to devote your life to a church.

My church never taught that devoting myself to the church was a required part of believing in Jesus. To the contrary, they would frown on that very notion.

So I guess which church you worship will make a huge difference in how you see Chrsitianity.

I have no doubt that your arguments might work for the church you worship, but from my perspective that has nothing to do with Christianity in general. Your church does not define Christianity. The Gospel rumors do. And the Gospel rumors have Jesus asking people to believe on faith, not on evidence.

So I would even suggest that your church (or wherever you got your ideas about Christianity from) appears to have become lost to the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus asked people to believe on faith, not on evidence.

[Realworldjack]

And all I see here is one who just can't seem to understand, that none of this has a thing in the word to do with this conversation! It has nothing to do with what I might be attempting to force on anyone. Rather, (and try to read carefully here) it has to do with what these folks, who claim to have been convinced Christianity was true were doing, when they claim to have been convinced.

Your arguments amount to nothing more than a desperate attempt to discredit your debate opponent.

The problem with your argument is that even most clergy will openly confess that they not only believe on faith, but often have times when they find it difficult to keep the faith.

If you are trying to argue that the only sincere Christians are those who have been convinced by evidence then your argument is sorely lost. The overwhelming majority of Christians confess to believing on faith. Many even argue that it's the only way to go. A huge Christian apologetic argument is that believing on faith is paramount because being convinced by evidence would violate your free will choice to believe based on faith.

Even Jesus asked people, and clearly expected people, to believe on faith.

So your arguments can't even be supported by Christian theology, and they most certainly aren't supported by the Gospel rumors of Jesus who clearly expected people to believe on faith and not on evidence.

So you've lost this debate buddy. You're attempt to discredit me as having never been a "true believer" is nonsense.

And I never said that I had been convinced by "evidence".

If anything I has been convinced by lying adults. I believe them when they said it was true, when the real truth was that they clearly did not know whether it's true or not. They even openly confessed to this later in life when asked for an honest answer.

So you're arguments are dead. Even Jesus doesn't support your arguments.

Christianity doesn't ask anyone to believe on evidence.

The religion itself asks people to believe on faith.

Sorry that you are so upset that this is the basis of your favorite religion. But that's the way it is. Even Jesus asks you to believe on faith, not on evidence.

The problem is that the religion not only lacks evidence, but the evidence that it can't possibly be true is overwhelming. So it actually takes a huge amount of faith in spite of the obvious evidence against it to continue to believe in it.

Perhaps this is what you are doing and why you see this as a major decision in life? Believing in something that has no evidence would indeed be a major decision to make, especially if you take that to mean that you need to devote your life to a church.

My church never taught that devoting myself to the church was a required part of believing in Jesus. To the contrary, they would frown on that very notion.

So I guess which church you worship will make a huge difference in how you see Chrsitianity.

I have no doubt that your arguments might work for the church you worship, but from my perspective that has nothing to do with Christianity in general. Your church does not define Christianity. The Gospel rumors do. And the Gospel rumors have Jesus asking people to believe on faith, not on evidence.

So I would even suggest that your church (or wherever you got your ideas about Christianity from) appears to have become lost to the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus asked people to believe on faith, not on evidence.

Your arguments amount to nothing more than a desperate attempt to discredit your debate opponent.

You have yet to demonstrate how my simply repeating what they have to say for themselves would be an, "attempt to discredit them"? They are the ones who claim to have become convinced of something they now say there would be no facts, and evidence to support, and the NATURAL question that would arise here would be, "what would cause us to believe the thinking is an better now"?

The problem with your argument is that even most clergy will openly confess that they not only believe on faith, but often have times when they find it difficult to keep the faith.

How in the world would this be a problem with my argument? It would seem to be a problem with the argument those you are referring to are attempting to make? I do not know who you are referring to, but it seems that on the one hand they want to argue that Christians are to believe upon faith, and then on the other, their faith is not getting it done.

If you are trying to argue that the only sincere Christians are those who have been convinced by evidence then your argument is sorely lost.

Where in the world did I make such an argument? I have not, and have even went on to describe how "sincere these former Christians were". You continue to use "straw men".

The overwhelming majority of Christians confess to believing on faith. Many even argue that it's the only way to go.

What does this have to do with it? A huge majority of folks, once believed the earth to be flat.

A huge Christian apologetic argument is that believing on faith is paramount because being convinced by evidence would violate your free will choice to believe based on faith.

Again, I do not know who you are referring to but, this debate has been raging for thousands of years, and there are arenas filled with folks who come to listen to these debates, and there are unbelievers who have admitted that the apologist has won the debate at times, and there is no way to have a debate, and there certainly is no way an unbeliever could, or would admit the apologist won any sort of debate, if there were no facts, and evidence to debate. In other words, the apologist is certainly not standing up there saying, "you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart". The fact of the matter is, you very seldom use facts, and evidence yourself, but rather simply make comments such as these.

Even Jesus asked people, and clearly expected people, to believe on faith.

Asked them to believe what? At one point, Jesus said, "believe on the evidence of the works themselves". What was the word Jesus used there? That's right, "EVIDENCE". Moreover, after the death of Jesus, the Apostles were not asking folks to believe the resurrection upon faith, but were rather pointing to the evidence in support. If they wanted folks to believe upon faith, then there would be no need in mentioning any sort of evidence to make the argument.

So then, it is not all that shocking to know there would still be Christians today who have become convinced of Christianity upon faith, seeing as how we have so many former Christians on this site who claim to be convinced of something there would be no evidence to support. Your arguments demonstrate themselves, how weak they are.

So your arguments can't even be supported by Christian theology, and they most certainly aren't supported by the Gospel rumors of Jesus who clearly expected people to believe on faith and not on evidence.

I have just demonstrated this to be false. And how did I do this? By pointing to the evidence, from the "Gospel rumors" themselves.

So you've lost this debate buddy.

Not according to the evidence.

You're attempt to discredit me as having never been a "true believer" is nonsense.

And here is one of the reasons I have not lost, and that is because you do not seem to even be arguing with me, because I have never suggested you were not a "true believer". Rather, what I have said is, "there are those who claim to have been convinced Christianity would be true, (true believer) who now want to insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support what it is they were once convinced of". How does this translate into, "they were not true believers"?

And I never said that I had been convinced by "evidence".

This is a no brainer, since you now say, "there would be no facts, and evidence in support". However, this simply demonstrates one who can be convinced of something there would be no facts, and evidence to support, and the natural question that would arise would be, how can we know the thinking is any better now"?

If anything I has been convinced by lying adults.

This simply demonstrates one who can become convinced of something, on the word of others. How can we know the thinking is any better?

So you're arguments are dead. Even Jesus doesn't support your arguments.

Demonstrated false above.

The religion itself asks people to believe on faith.

Faith in what? There are certain things we all believe upon faith, such as things that we cannot weigh, or measure, but Christianity does not in any way ask that we believe things such as the resurrection upon faith. If this were the case, there would be no need in mentioning the empty tomb, and using such words as, evidence, proof, proving, witness, eye witness, investigation, judge, judgement, defense, accuse, verdict, etc., which are words you would hear in a court of law everyday, and also words you find right there in the material contained in the NT.

So then, while there are certain things, that must be accepted by faith, Christianity never ask one to simply close their eyes, and simply accept Christianity to be true, upon faith.

This just sort of demonstrates to me, that as you say, the folks you were listening to, "did not have a clue", and you are simply bringing that reckless theology with you, and continuing even to this day, to take their word.

Sorry that you are so upset that this is the basis of your favorite religion.

My friend, I am not "upset" in the least, because it is to easy to demonstrate your error. The only thing to be "upset" about, would be the fact, that you continue to make arguments, I have never made, but that is easy to demonstrate, as well.

The problem is that the religion not only lacks evidence, but the evidence that it can't possibly be true is overwhelming.

You keep saying things like this, but you demonstrate nothing. Next, if what you say were true, this debate would not continue to rage.

Perhaps this is what you are doing and why you see this as a major decision in life?

The reason why I say it is a major life decision, is because for the overwhelming majority of those who make the decision to become a Christian, it has an impact on their entire life, which causes them to participate in things they never would if they were not Christians. And, it is these things that impact one's life, that those who were once Christians, point to, in order to demonstrate just how convinced they were.

So then, in the end, it is really not me who is insisting that it would be a major life decision, (although I agrees that it would be for the overwhelming majority) but rather those who claim to have been convinced Christianity would have been true at one time.

Moreover, you have even aggreged yourself, that if there are those who think that attending Church, and doing all the Church tells you to do is a requirement, then it would indeed be a major life decision, and this is what most of these folks are insisting they were doing, in order to convince us, just how convinced they were.

Believing in something that has no evidence would indeed be a major decision to make, especially if you take that to mean that you need to devote your life to a church.

Which is exactly to a "TEE" what these folks are saying about themselves.

My church never taught that devoting myself to the church was a required part of believing in Jesus. To the contrary, they would frown on that very notion.

All you are doing here is to insist that it would not have been a major decision for you, but this does not negate the fact that there are those who claim to have been once convinced, who are indeed arguing that, it would have been a major decision for them, which is part of their argument.

So I guess which church you worship will make a huge difference in how you see Chrsitianity.

This may be true, but would not include me, since I am not attending Church. However, although we cannot say you are "worshiping a Church" we have seen evidence that you are still influenced by the Church you were exposed to.

I have no doubt that your arguments might work for the church you worship, but from my perspective that has nothing to do with Christianity in general. Your church does not define Christianity. The Gospel rumors do. And the Gospel rumors have Jesus asking people to believe on faith, not on evidence.

You are in error in 2 places here. First, I do not attend Church. Next, we have already seen that Jesus used the word, "evidence" and asked folks to believe upon this "evidence".

Jesus asked people to believe on faith, not on evidence.

Not according to the "evidence" we have examined?

[Divine Insight]

You have yet to demonstrate how my simply repeating what they have to say for themselves would be an, "attempt to discredit them"?

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

For that matter where did I ever say that I had been convinced by evidence?

You bear false witness against them by proclaiming that they had said things they never said. And then accuse them of having been mistaken.

That's an "attempt to discredit them" by claiming that they had said things that they never even said.

You're accusations against them are false.

You are NOT just repeating what they had said for themselves. You are creating a false narrative. You are misrepresenting their position and bearing false witness against them by claiming that they said things they never said.

So there's nothing here to address. All that is required is for you to stop making false claims about what other people supposedly said when in fact they never said those things.