What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[Eloi]

My single strongest reason for believing Christ was raised from the dead is that a lot of persons saw him alive ...

I can determine that reason is reliable because those persons lived their lives based on that they saw, so they trusted, and they died because of their beliefs ... Their beliefs were based on what they saw and my biliefs are based on what they said and what I know about their lives.

I think we are going in circles here.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 12 by Tcg]

Actually, the second question is asking the Christian to describe the method she/he used to conclude her/his belief is true; not necessarily requesting the evidence supporting his/her conclusion. It is a subtle but important distinction.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 13 by Eloi]

What is your single strongest reason for believing that the authors of the Gospels were conveying eyewitness testimony and how can we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 23 by bluegreenearth]
These testimonies were written very shortly after the events they narrate occur. There is evidence that this period from when they occurred until they were told is short, much shorter compared to other writings that tell historical facts and that were recounted many centuries later, and yet they are taken as truthful. The latter, in addition to being taken as truthful, repeat them again and again in the history books that are studied in the schools and are given as historical facts.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 18 by Eloi]

Do modern historians assume the content of certain ancient texts are historically accurate because those documents describe eyewitness accounts or because the content has an empirical basis? For instance, is the reason we accept the historical account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon only because it is referenced as an eyewitness account or because there is no reason to doubt the possibility that an ancient Roman military leader had the ability to board a vessel and float across a river? If the eyewitness account happened to describe a supernatural event such as Caesar flying on dragon across the Rubicon, would historians accept or reject that information as historically accurate? Why or why not?

[Eloi]

Some facts are assumed as historical for different reasons. When it comes to ancient historical facts, the base is a story that is given as true, compared with other stories of the time, with stories of later historians and with archaeological and other evidence. Some facts that the Bible narrates are despised primarily by religious prejudices. There are many historians who use the Bible as a reliable guide.

The resurrection of Jesus is assumed as false by the supernatural content that is not explained by scientific method, but the testimony is there.

[bluegreenearth]

Some facts are assumed as historical for different reasons. When it comes to ancient historical facts, the base is a story that is given as true, compared with other stories of the time, with stories of later historians and with archaeological and other evidence. Some facts that the Bible narrates are despised primarily by religious prejudices. There are many historians who use the Bible as a reliable guide.

The resurrection of Jesus is assumed as false by the supernatural content that is not explained by scientific method, but the testimony is there.

Is there an objective method for determining if the Gospel accounts of the resurrection are reliable or unreliable?

[Eloi]

Depend on what you call "reliable method".

As I said before, other documents that are older than New Testament are taken as trustable ... How the historians do that? You should ask historians about it.

The "method" I use is believing in persons I trust and it is enough objective to me.

There is no evidence that is sufficient for everyone. Everyone has their own criteria of truthfulness, and some agree ... but not even all scientists have exactly the same criteria.

You must choose/determine your own criteria. I already told you about mine.

[SallyF]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

When I was a child, I did childish things … like sing about my sins being washed away by the blood of Jesus.

Now that I think for myself, I'm a New Atheist.

When I was a Christian child, the strongest reason that supported my belief was that I didn't actually HAVE a reason. I didn't question my belief. I simply took the angels and scurrying stars and my Redeemer as standard, normal, everyday stuff, and never thought about actually questioning it, or that it may be wrong.

As I matured, I did question, and I did find that that reason - or non-reason - was unreliable.

It didn't take a lot of honest questioning (much to the chagrin of my Christian community) to find that there was no evidentiary support for the magical, water-walking, dead-rising, virgin-birthing, fish-multiplying, Heaven-offering, Hell-threatening Jesus I had been taught/indoctrinated/brainwashed into accepting as my Lord and Saviour.

And I have yet to see a single Christian present a single item of evidence of any sort that supports a single item of the supernatural/fantasy elements of their beliefs, so WE may independently determine by any means whatsoever that it is reliable.

Not a squeak.

Ever.

[William]

For me, this picture sums it up succinctly