Fear or Love, the 'why' behind christianity

[nobspeople]

Why do people become christian? Meaning, what's the drawing force that causes them to unload their previous lives and, taking up the cross, become a soldier for christ, fear or love?

You can't truly love someone (on when dealing with God, something) without knowing them. Do I love you? No. Do I know you? No. But it must also be said knowing someone or thing doesn't automatically equate to love.
So you can't become a christian because you love God.
What's left?
Fear, I suppose. Maybe indifference, or hate, but neither of these things equate to love and acceptance as far as I can tell.
Do you have to fear God? The bible says YES (though many would disagree what 'fear' means in that regard). So you certainly can fear God and, by extension, fear 'eternal Hell' (which many claim is the end result for rejecting christ, though many on this very site disagree with that statement even though it's taught in many christian churches). So, to avoid Hell ('cause you fear it) you become a christian, following the rules, living the life, fearing God, avoiding sin, asking forgiveness when you sin (though some sect say 'once forgiven always forgiven', so no need to ask for forgiveness more than once generally - oh the rules and caveats!!), tithe, read the bible, try to be righteous. Some speak in tongues, fast, sacrifice many things, and on and on, to be a christian and, by doing so successfully, avoiding hell (again, many would say though not all agree).
Over time, you can grow to love God (you can grow to love the taste of dirt if you eat it enough), but it's the fear that seems to come first.

For discussion, how is fear NOT what draws people into this chosen belief system?

[brunumb]

But initially, when a person becomes a christian, they don't know God past what they're told. There's no personal relationship with God enough to create the bond of love. It may develop over time, but initially, it's not love that brings a person to God, but fear and desperation. Not love.

To my mind, the majority of believers are 'made'. Their beliefs are inculcated from birth. They are essentially told what to believe when their minds are most receptive to ideas and least critical. They develop the trappings of love, mimicking the social group they grow up within. The darker side of their religion, fear of eternal damnation and the threat of being shunned, is what helps to keep them from questioning their faith and leaving the fold. Love of God has little to do with it.

[nobspeople]

For discussion, how is fear NOT what draws people into this chosen belief system?

Don't quite understand your question here, but as for the "why" of Christianity---why people believe it---I've always felt it's grounded in the fear of Hell it says everyone should possess, plus the comfort a believer can draw from it.

As for the "why" of Christianity---why it exists in the first place---I believe it rests in the controlling power that resides in all religions, which in the case of Christianity came out of Judaism. As I see it, religions are developed by autocratic driven entities, commonly priests or clerics of some sort, who set themselves up as intellectual superiors who have the answers to the great questions of life: Where did we come from? What is the meaning of life? What happens to us after death? In short, religions, Christianity included, are the product of domineering, dictatorial personalities exercising their advantage.


.

Sorry about that. I fat fingered the question (being dyslexic that happens from time to time). It's been corrected.

Don't mean to be pedantic, but I honestly don't see any difference between the original and corrected forms.

Original:. ..For discussion, how is fear NOT what draws people into this chosen belief system?

Corrected: For discussion, how is fear NOT what draws people into this chosen belief system?

.

Originally it was 'why' now it's 'how'.
I suppose, to some, it means the same thing?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 1213 in post #10]

I have understood that it means in Bible care without conditions, doing good to others, without expecting reward. I think it is possible without knowing other.

I could care about you without condition, do good to and for you and not expect anything. That doesn't mean I love you.
But, as you said, I suppose it depends on what 'love' means to one person.
Personally, I can't love anything I don't know and I don't honestly see how anyone can.
But anything for an excuse to justify one's agenda, I suppose.

If one cannot love someone they don't know, how could they fear him?

I don't know you. I don't love you. But if you threaten me by doable means, I could indeed fear you. That's how. Especially when, in dealing with God, it's not bound by anything. In other words, it can do anything to anyone at anytime for any reason (or no reason).

And if one knows God, why would he fear him?

A question I've seen asked many times in this forum, with varying answers. Perhaps that's a question best offered to theologians, those that teach it in churches and the like.

[nobspeople]

But initially, when a person becomes a christian, they don't know God past what they're told. There's no personal relationship with God enough to create the bond of love. It may develop over time, but initially, it's not love that brings a person to God, but fear and desperation. Not love.

To my mind, the majority of believers are 'made'. Their beliefs are inculcated from birth. They are essentially told what to believe when their minds are most receptive to ideas and least critical. They develop the trappings of love, mimicking the social group they grow up within. The darker side of their religion, fear of eternal damnation and the threat of being shunned, is what helps to keep them from questioning their faith and leaving the fold. Love of God has little to do with it.

That makes the most sense to me. What I find amusing, based on previous conversations I've have recently, is that people who do this (christians) accuse other of doing the same thing (indoctrination of kids to be gay, for example).
They're fine doing it when it comes to their chosen belief system.
But they accuse others of doing it.
And when the others do it, it's bad. But when they do it, it's fine.
Christians are so hypocritical it's frightening.

[1213]

...
But, as you said, I suppose it depends on what 'love' means to one person.
...

Please tell, what do you think love means?

[brunumb]

If one cannot love someone they don't know, how could they fear him? And if one knows God, why would he fear him?

"You Will Know Them by Their Fruits"
When they are supposed to be all loving but engage in smiting and encouraging killing, like God, then you are justified in not loving them but fearing them. Of course, the true believer will simply sweep all of God's atrocities under the rug and offer their own rationalisations for his actions. That aside, who really knows God? No one. They merely worship an avatar of their own creation.

[nobspeople]

...
But, as you said, I suppose it depends on what 'love' means to one person.
...

Please tell, what do you think love means?

It means various things at various times. Therefore, you'll have to be more specific if you want a specific answer.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
But, as you said, I suppose it depends on what 'love' means to one person.
...

Please tell, what do you think love means?

It means various things at various times. Therefore, you'll have to be more specific if you want a specific answer.

Apologies - I only just remembered to use 'reply with quote'.

I already said that 'love' is a blunderbuss word, and so it is. But I wonder whether one might simplify it. We sort experiences and feeling into two baskets - ones that we like and ones we don't. Stuff we like a lot apparently leads to a wash of dopamine, which makes us feel good, but never mind that. Stuff we like, we tend to defend, because we make it personal. It takes a bit of training to be objective and not put personal preference before impartial analysis of the evidence (the matter of projection is another discussion, but is very relevant).

Whereas personal dislike can lead to what we call the 'Ick' factor. It can lead to an emotional rejection without looking at the evidence and of course falsifying the evidence to support the dislike.
One's whole feeling of self -worth, justification and position in society can be bound up with what one likes and what one doesn't, and it can be very hard to be objective about it and changing the mind can be a stunning experience and feels close to Revelation, when you do it.

This isn't addressing this odd business of 'Love' of a Leader whose actions are horrible and whom one fears. I have never lived under a dictator and have never been a God - believer, so I don't know how it feels, but Folks, I see the feeling as being much the same.

[nobspeople]

...
But, as you said, I suppose it depends on what 'love' means to one person.
...

Please tell, what do you think love means?

It means various things at various times. Therefore, you'll have to be more specific if you want a specific answer.

Apologies - I only just remembered to use 'reply with quote'.

I already said that 'love' is a blunderbuss word, and so it is. But I wonder whether one might simplify it. We sort experiences and feeling into two baskets - ones that we like and ones we don't. Stuff we like a lot apparently leads to a wash of dopamine, which makes us feel good, but never mind that. Stuff we like, we tend to defend, because we make it personal. It takes a bit of training to be objective and not put personal preference before impartial analysis of the evidence (the matter of projection is another discussion, but is very relevant).

Whereas personal dislike can lead to what we call the 'Ick' factor. It can lead to an emotional rejection without looking at the evidence and of course falsifying the evidence to support the dislike.
One's whole feeling of self -worth, justification and position in society can be bound up with what one likes and what one doesn't, and it can be very hard to be objective about it and changing the mind can be a stunning experience and feels close to Revelation, when you do it.

This isn't addressing this odd business of 'Love' of a Leader whose actions are horrible and whom one fears. I have never lived under a dictator and have never been a God - believer, so I don't know how it feels, but Folks, I see the feeling as being much the same.

With billions of people on the planet, I'm not sure we can 'simplify it' in any agreeable way. Is it worth trying? I think that depends on whom is asked. In my experience, those who are, what I consider, fanatics in their beliefs, are 'fine' with keeping things 'the way they are' and are opposed - many time vehemently - to change. These people tend to fall outside the bell-curve, however.
But with things that aren't tactile and (especially) linked to emotion, I'm not sure simplifying is do-able in the long-run.
But maybe, it's not the end result, but the work in trying, that would net the best result?

[TRANSPONDER]

...You can't truly love someone (on when dealing with God, something) without knowing them. Do I love you? No. Do I know you? No. But it must also be said knowing someone or thing doesn't automatically equate to love...

Maybe it depends on what is meant with love. I have understood that it means in Bible care without conditions, doing good to others, without expecting reward. I think it is possible without knowing other.

...Fear, I suppose. Maybe indifference, or hate, but neither of these things equate to love and acceptance as far as I can tell.
Do you have to fear God? ...

If one cannot love someone they don't know, how could they fear him? And if one knows God, why would he fear him?

Because, as I understand it, He can send you to Hell to suffer for eternity. What's more, I have seen some Christian apologists trapped into denying that professing belief in Jesus is some sort of guarantee that one is going to be saved; I was told that there is NO guarantee of being saved - it's entirely down to God's decision.

So why wouldn't a Christian be terrified of going to Hell? In fact deconverts have said that, when they believed, they were in terror of not being good enough to escape hell.

What is your comment on that?