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?

[Divine Insight]

How have you established that it is even factual, that such personalities 'still desire to do bad things'?

I don't need to establish this. Many Christians have already established this by their own decree.

Perhaps you've missed my post where I pointed out that many Christians proclaim that if they were convinced there is no God they wouldn't have any problem doing all manner of nasty things?

So the proof is already in the pudding. My opinion isn't required.

By the way, I'm not, nor have I ever, claimed that ALL Christians have turned to Christianity in an effort to change their evil desires. To the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of Christians see themselves as having always been good people.

Hey, let's not lose sight of the fact that I was one of them. I wasn't a bad or evil person who turned to Christianity in hopes of becoming a better person. I was born and raised into Christianity. As far as I'm concerned I've always been a good person.

Sure, I've made all the stupid petty mistakes that children make. But nothing that was done with intentional evil intent. In fact, Christianity tries to make decent people feel guilty.

And that's yet another reason why it's such a disgusting religion.

So no, I don't need to prove the things you claim I need to prove. Christians have already proven these things for themselves. Once again, that would be true even if I had never been born. So it can't be dependent upon my opinion or worldview.

You keep trying to argue that these are just my opinions, but that's not going to fly.

[William]

[Replying to post 31]

Divine Insight: I don't need to establish this. Many Christians have already established this by their own decree.

William: Hardly trustworthy information, if indeed such comes from 'bad' characters. Hearsay isn't evidence anyway.
Do you have any official stats? Apparently not, or you would have shared these with us as part of the evidence - evidence still not supplied by you.

All in all, your judgmental opinion is too unsupported to take seriously.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 32 by William]

I don't feel that I need to verify the fact that many Christians argue that if there was no God they would see no reason to be moral. After all, that's a huge apologetic argument that they make all the time.

Why you would ask me for evidence for something so obvious is beyond me. Just talk to Christian apologists. This is a huge apology for Christian theology.

Surely you're not going to tell me that you haven't heard the Christian theists argue that atheists have no basis for morality?

Asking me for evidence for this would be like asking me for evidence that the world is populated with humans. Just look for yourself. It's as obvious as the air that you breath.

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who refuses to accept the obvious.

Also, think of the topic of the thread. Why would joining Christianity be a "Major Life Decision" if a person didn't think that they would need to change the way they live?

What would be so "Major" about just continuing to being who you are?

This is always the problem with Christian apologetics. Christians always want to have their cake and eat it too.

They want to claim that becoming a Christian is a "Major Decision" whilst simultaneously arguing that it's no big deal.

So which is it?

Do they need to make major changes in their lives to become a Christian or not?

Trying to hide behind accusations that this can somehow be reduced to "my opinion" is ridiculous. I have nothing at all to do with it. As I've said before, I could have never been born and this same problem with Christianity would remain.

It has absolutely nothing to do with me or my opinions.

Does choosing to believe in Christianity require a "Major Life Decision" or not? And if it does, then why is that the case?

Don't look to me or my opinions for excuses because I have nothing at all to do with it. If I never existed the problem would still be here.

Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

In fact, Christianity tries to make decent people feel guilty.

To me, that is the very crux of their religion. If you don't feel the guilt of the sinfulness allegedly imposed upon you, then you don't need Jesus to fix it. Reminds me of Munchausen by proxy syndrome.

[bjs]

1. Does Christianity dictate your major life decisions?

Yes.

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

In so many, many ways it is futile to attempt to list them here. Faith in God is a fundamental part of my personality.

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?

I seem to recall Jesus saying, "If any man would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." So denying oneself seems to be an essential part of the Christian faith.

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?[/b][/color]

I am not convinced that people have a "core." Our "core" is define by how we live and why we chose to live that way. If Christianity effects the way we live then Christianity is part of the core of our character.

[Divine Insight]

I seem to recall Jesus saying, "If any man would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." So denying oneself seems to be an essential part of the Christian faith.

That actually comes from Buddhism and was no doubt where Jesus got the idea from.

I am not convinced that people have a "core." Our "core" is define by how we live and why we chose to live that way. If Christianity effects the way we live then Christianity is part of the core of our character.

If a person had the core they expect to get from Christianity then they wouldn't need the religion. We could also ask whether someone who needs to follow the lead of a religious leader even has a core of their own. So in that sense perhaps you're right. Their core is defined by something other than themselves.

[Red Wolf]

The Biggest Decision of Your Life.

Have you chosen the right church? The true Church? Jesus’ Church?

They say there are about seven billion people in the world; but only about one billion people who identify themselves as Christians. Have the Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and other non-Christians chosen the wrong church damning themselves for all eternity?

But even among Christians, some are Catholic, and some are Protestant. Which group is saved and which is damned? Some might argue that Jesus chose the Catholic Church as his church.
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.� Matthew 16:18
But Protestants argue that the Roman Catholic Church is corrupt and Protestantism is the “right way.�

Jesus gave us some clues that only a few would find it.
““Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.�� Matthew 7:13-14

There are literally thousands of Christian denominations, sects, cults, etc.
Is yours the winner or is yours among the myriad of losers?

Does the right church believe in a Trinity? Or not? Which one is right?
Trinitarians are more numerous. Are they on the broad way?

Does your church observe the Sunday Sabbath or the Seventh Day Sabbath?
Sunday is more popular…is this the broad way to destruction?

Does your church have infant baptism or adult baptism? Immersion or Sprinkle?

Does your church accept gays or not? Gay pastors? Gay marriage?

Are you rich? Maybe you are poor by US standards but rich by world standards?
“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.� Matthew 19:24

If you choose the wrong Church are you damned?
Is it possible you have chosen the wrong church?

Is it possible that all choices are the wrong church?????

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

I already addressed your fallacious argument in the other thread. Yet you come over here to repeat it.

You continue to say things like this, and claim to "know" many things, which you have not demonstrated in the least.

Next, I have not repeated any argument, but was rather correcting you in that, I was not, "belittling you for having once believed in the religion only to discover later than the religion is false." Rather, I was simply pointing out what you admit to yourself. In other words, I believe you have admitted to being convinced Christianity would have been true, only now to insist that it would be false, with no facts, and evidence in support.

How can it be an attempt to "belittle" you, by simply reporting upon what you have said, yourself?

I was never a "Fully Convinced" Christian based on the Christians Dogma (i.e. the Bible)

My friend, you were either a "fully convinced Christian" or, you were not? So, which is it?

Like the vast majority of Christians I had been "Fully Convinced" that Jesus was the Son of God because I believed my parents, and pastors, etc. People who told lies for this religion.

Okay, so you demonstrate one who would have been "fully convinced" of something, you had not put a whole lot of thinking into? Correct?

So having been "Fully Convinced" by lying adults I decided to study the Bible and learn about "God's Word" in detail. Not as a skeptic, but as someone who was "Fully Convinced" that it was true. My purpose was to better understand exactly what God expect from us, as well as to better understand why he had to resort to such a desperate thing as having his only begotten Son crucified on our behalf.

Right! So now, we are listening to one who has just admitted to being "fully convinced" of something they did not put a whole lot of thinking into, and the question then becomes, what would cause us to believe, that the thinking would be any better now? This is not an insult, but is rather simply listening to what you have to say about yourself, and then thinking critically, and asking the questions that would naturally arise.

After all, I couldn't help but notice that even the Pastors couldn't agree on the answers to these questions. So it was my mission to understand God through "His Word" (i.e. the Bible).

Right, and my point is, you would think that one would have already done all this work, before they became "fully convinced"? How does one become "fully convinced" of something, they have not actually studied?

It was only during that study that I discovered that the entire religion is based on self-contradictory nonsense that could never possibly be true.

Right, and I have no problem with this, except for the fact that you have already demonstrated yourself to be one who could be, "fully convinced" of something, they have not really thought about.

So your continued accusations are misguided, misinformed, and you have already been set straight on this once yet you continue to make these false accusations.

How can my simply repeating what you have to say for yourself, be an "accusation"? How can it be "misguided, or misinformed", unless you are the one who has "misguided, and misinformed" us?

I have simply pointed out that you were once a "fully convinced" Christian. You admit to becoming a "fully convinced" Christian, without actually studying. You go on to insist, that you were "fully convinced" of something, that there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

So exactly how am I "misguided, or misinformed", and how would this be an attempt to "belittle" you, since these are the things you say about yourself?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 30 by Divine Insight]

That's why I put morally right in quotes.

Moral Question: Should one lie to save another person's life?

How you personally answer that question is different from the objectivist/subjectivist issue.

Person A says to lie to save a person's life, but not just for any reason.
Person B says not to lie even to save a person's life.

The objectivist (which can be either of these persons) says only one person is correct. The absolutist says that Person B is correct. The situationalist says that Person A is correct.

The subjectivist (which can be either of these persons) says either (1) both are morally right or (2) neither are morally right. I think (1) redefines "morally right" into a synonym for "I approve of," which tells us nothing we already didn't know. I don't think anyone really stops there. Subjectivists end up also meaning (2), without "morally right" being redefined from how objectivists mean it. Subjectivism, then, ends up putting morality on par with what your favorite ice cream is. The subjectivist says that Person A and Person B just prefer different things and neither of them is objectively wrong.

I think, from your last post, that puts us on the same page, but feel free to correct any of my misunderstanding there.

As to your arguments for subjectivism, you keep talking about absolute morality. Do you use that as the counter to subjectivism (where I would use objectivism or realism)? Or do you use that as the counter to situationalism (which I would)? I am a situationalist, so I agree morality is not absolute. I think your arguments have flaws either way, but it will help to have you clarify this.

[bjs]

That actually comes from Buddhism and was no doubt where Jesus got the idea from.

That is not an accurate description of Buddhism, nor is there any evidence that Buddhist teachers had reached Palestine by the beginning of the first century. Your statement is categorically false.

If a person had the core they expect to get from Christianity then they wouldn't need the religion.

Indeed, Jesus explicitly said that he did not come for the righteous, but for sinners. Throughout the entire course of her history the church has always taught that if someone believes that he or she is morally good on his or her own, then Christianity has nothing to offer that person.