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]

Okay. Do that. Point to the verse where Jesus says that it’s not important to believe in him.

John 12:
[47] And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
[48] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Also, point the verse where Jesus gives a percentage (specifically, 99%) of the people who go to heaven based on their own righteousness.

Luke.15
[4] What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[7] I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Ninety and nine to one is 99%.

Why would Jesus speak about ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance if there doesn't even exist one such person?

The things most people have been taught about Christianity aren't even supported by the scriptures. Unless we ignore words attributed to Jesus and only focus on words attributed to Paul which many Christians have apparently been taught to do.

But why are Christians worshiping the words of Paul when Jesus is supposed to be the Son of God?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 42 by Divine Insight]

I've already answered this. I was "fully convinced" in the very same way that the vast majority of Christians have been "fully convinced". Because their parents and pastors had lied to them. NOT because they had studied the Bible for themselves, or had seen any facts or evidence.

So do you understand this now? Or are you going to continue to harp on a falsehood?

Yes I understand it now, just like I have from the beginning. You were convinced Christianity would be true, but now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support Christianity. This would have to mean, that you were convinced of something, that you did not put a whole lot of thinking into, in order to become convinced, and now would like us to believe that your thinking has somehow changed. That my friend, does not necessarily follow.

Becasue you see, when one admits they did not think very much to make such a major life decision, it may well be the fact that it may not have took a whole lot of thinking to talk them out. This is what I call, "easy in, easy out".

Moreover, the way in which you describe your parents, pastor, and other Christian friends, it does not sound like they did a whole lot of thinking themselves in order to make such a major life decision, and with this being the case, it is not all that shocking to discover, they would not have a clue what it is they believe, or why they believed as they did, since you pretty much have demonstrated that you, and your family seem to make decisions in this way.

Exactly. Just like 99.999999% of other Christians including my very own parents and pastors.

I think you may be stretching it just a little bit, but no matter, this simply demonstrates that you are one who tends to "follow the herd".

I accepted it on PURE FAITH!

This is something I would never do. And especially with such a major life decision. At least, I have never done such a thing as an adult.

Because my parents and pastors assured me it was true.

Well, you can blame your parents, and your pastor if you like, but I had a pastor, who was also my father, and I can assure you that I did not simply take his, nor anyone else's word for it. In fact, when I became of age, around the age of 19, I simply did not attend Church, exactly because I was aware that I was not convinced.

And if you stop and think about it, I was actually placing my FAITH in them to be telling the truth, only to later discover that this was grossly misplaced faith. It turns out that they had no clue what they were talking about.

Yeah, I had the same experience, except I did not walk around being convinced of something I had no facts, and evidence to support. But again, the way in which you describe your parents, it is not shocking at all, that they had no clue.

Simple, my first belief was based on faith that adults I trusted weren't lying.

Did you continue to have this "faith" in your parents, even as an adult? As an adult, I do not believe that my parents would ever intentionally lie to me, but I certainly did not have enough faith in them to believe they could not be in error.

In fact, one of the first things I thought about as I began to study the facts involved with Christianity was that, although I love my parents, I know they are not the most intelligent folks in the world, and so I am not going to place my faith in the idea that they could not be in error.

It wasn't until I looked into the Bible for myself that I discovered its obvious fallacy.

You seem to be implying that there is something wrong here, but there isn't.

Oh, there is plenty wrong here I will assure you, and it involves the fact that one can be convinced of something, they have no facts, and evidence to support, unless of course you were a child, but this is not the way in which you seem to describe it. If one cannot see there is plenty wrong here, then that sort of explains things.

Some children actually trust their parents and elders to be truthful. Perhaps you did not?

Sure! When I was a "child" I pretty much trusted my parents, and if you are saying that all this occurred when you were a child, then you certainly have an excuse. However, by the time I was an early teenager, I understood that my parents made mistakes.

Christianity is NOT a fact and evidence based religion. It's a FAITH-BASED religion.

You can continue to insist this if you wish, and I can only imagine it is because you were persuaded of this by your parents who you acknowledge, "did not have a clue", but I can assure you that when I began to study the Christian faith, I was looking for facts, and if I would have came away with the idea that I had to believe these things upon faith, then I would have, "dropped it like a hot potato".

All you are really doing is to demonstrate that you were influenced by those who did not think, which encouraged you not to think, and there is no way for us to determine if your thinking is any better now.

If you think there are facts and evidence to support Christianity, then you are the one who is making a grave mistake.

Yeah, you can continue to say such things, and I could say the exact opposite, and we would be like two kids on a playground.

However, it is a fact that we have the claims made in the NT. It is a fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, addresses both of his letters to the same individual. It is a fact that this author begins to use the words "we", and "us" to describe the events of the travels of Paul, as if the author is there to actually witness the events he records. It is a fact that Paul mentions others as being with him on his journeys. It is a fact that Paul mentions the name of Luke as being with him on his journeys. It is a fact that that author of the two letters to Theophlius ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years. It is a fact that we have a letter from Paul which would clearly have been written while Paul would have been under arrest. It is a fact, that in this letter Paul just so happens to mention in passing, "only Luke is with me". It is a fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus begins his second letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. It is a fact that when the travels of Paul begins, this author begins to focus on what Paul was doing, and does not mention the Apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless, Paul came back in contact with them again. It is a fact, that all of this would be evidence to support the fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled with Paul, would have known the Apostles personally, and would have known the claims they were making from their very lips.

All of this would mean, that we have very good evidence to support the idea that, the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have had every opportunity to "investigate everything carefully from the beginning" just as he ensured Theophilus that he had done.

We have all these facts, and evidence, on top of a whole lot more, and all you have is, "it could have been". Great job!

In the end, there are indeed facts, and evidence to support Christianity, which is exactly why the "scholars" must put forth their opinion of the facts, and evidence, because if there were no facts, and evidence, there would be nothing to have an opinion about.

Again you're creating a false narrative. Nowhere did I ever say that I was "fully convinced" of anything BASED ON EVIDENCE.

My friend it matters not whether it would have been, "BASED ON EVIDNECE". All this does is to demonstrate one who can become convinced of something, without a whole lot of thinking involved. Moreover, you claim to be exposed to others such as your parents, and pastor who were not very good thinkers. The question that naturally arises here is, what in the world would cause us to believe the thinking process is any better now, than what it was when you were convinced of something completely different, with no facts, and evidence?

To the contrary, I simply accepted that my parents and pastors wouldn't lie about something so important.

You continue to want to blame your parents, but I do not see how this would be possible for an adult?

Because, as we all know, there are no facts or evidence to support Christian theology.

You continue to say things like this, but you demonstrate nothing. I have supplied you with some evidence above, and the only thing you can do is to share your opinion of these facts. However, you will not be able to demonstrate your opinion to be fact, and these facts, I have supplied, will continue to remain to be facts.

But there are facts and evidence that shows that it's necessarily false.

The difference between us is that I do acknowledge there are reasons to doubt, but I will assure you there would not be "facts and evidence that shows that it's necessarily false".

Because you are continuing to hold out a false premise that I had supposedly originally been convinced of Christianity based on "Facts and Evidence". That, my friend, never happened. Nor did I ever claim that it did.

This is not exactly accurate. My point has always been, you either were convinced by the facts, and evidence, only to now proclaim there would be no facts, and evidence. Or, you were convinced of something of which there would be no facts, and evidence, which demonstrates one who can be convinced of something, without a whole lot of thinking involved, and I am not sure which would be the worse?

That's been explained. I was "fully convinced" that my parents and pastors wouldn't intentionally lie about such important things.

Which again demonstrates one who can be convinced of something when there is not a whole lot of thinking involved, and the question then becomes, what would cause us to believe, the thinking is any better now?

The falsehoods you claim about me are NOT things I say about myself.

Okay, just to clear this up? Can we say, "you became convinced of something and there was not a whole lot of thinking involved in the process which convinced you"?

You continue to insist that I have been saying you based your conviction of facts, and evidence, and I do not recall insisting this would be the case? To demonstrate this, lets look at what I had to say, in my last post,

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.

So then, I am not insisting one way, or the other, but it is, either, or? In other words, you either became convinced by the facts, and evidence, only now to say, there would be not facts, and evidence. Or, you were convinced of something there would be not facts, and evidence in support of, which would demonstrate one who can be convinced of something, without a whole lot of thinking involved? I'll let you decide which?

[Divine Insight]

Becasue you see, when one admits they did not think very much to make such a major life decision

There is no point in me reading the rest of your post beyond your statement above because the above statement is false. Apparently you aren't paying attention to what I've been saying in the previous posts.

Becoming a Christian was never a "major life decision" for me.

In fact, that's the topic of this thread. Why would believing in Christianity be a "major life decision"?

If choosing to believe in Christianity was a "major life's decision" for you, then perhaps you can explain to us why that is the case?

How would you chose to live your life differently if you didn't believe in Christianity?

Please explain. That's the whole point of this thread.

Apparently, based on your arguments, you are convinced that believing in Christianity is a major life decision. So how about explaining why that's the case for you.

And finally, if you weren't even a believer until you had what you believed to be irrefutable facts and evidence that the religion is true. Then guess what? That would mean that you never actually make a "choice" to believe it, but rather you became convinced that you have "no choice" but to believe it.

So you are basically arguing that you have no choice but to believe it because, according to you, you refused to believe it until you had irrefutable facts and evidence that it was true.

Jesus would not be happy about that. Just read the New Testament and see.

Jesus wanted people to believe in him without evidence. Remember the doubting Thomas?

Yet your argument requires that you are the ultimate doubting Thomas. You wouldn't believe until you had been convinced by facts and evidence. That's your whole argument.

Only after you have been convinced that you have "no choice" but to believe were you willing to believe.

Isn't that correct? That sure seems to be your argument.

So how could that be considered to be a "Major Life Decision" when, according to you, you had no choice in the matter at all. You refused to believe until you were convinced by what you see as "Facts and Evidence". How does that amount to making a choice to believe? According to you in the face of the facts and evidence you were left with no choice but to believe. That's not a choice. That would just be accepting what you now believe you can no longer deny.

I'm pretty sure that's not the idea behind Christian theology.

I didn't "chose" to conclude that Christianity was false. I had no choice in the matter because the evidence against it was overwhelming.

[bjs]

Okay. Do that. Point to the verse where Jesus says that it’s not important to believe in him.

John 12:
[47] And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
[48] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

In the passage you quoted Jesus said literally the opposite of what you claim. Jesus said that if someone “rejecteth me� then he “hath one that judgeth him.� So according to the passage you quoted Jesus said that it is extremely important to believe in him.

Also, point the verse where Jesus gives a percentage (specifically, 99%) of the people who go to heaven based on their own righteousness.

Luke.15
[4] What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[7] I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Ninety and nine to one is 99%.

Why would Jesus speak about ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance if there doesn't even exist one such person?

In this passage Jesus did not say anything about how the 99 sheep were saved. Saying that they were saved by the own righteousness simply because their need of salvation is not mentioned explicitly is purely imaginative and not found in the text. Anyone is free to believe this, but do not pretend that it is found in the NT.

[Divine Insight]

In the passage you quoted Jesus said literally the opposite of what you claim. Jesus said that if someone “rejecteth me� then he “hath one that judgeth him.� So according to the passage you quoted Jesus said that it is extremely important to believe in him.

What?

If Jesus isn't going to judge you the only other entity that could judge you would be God right?

So your conclusion makes absolutely no sense at all unless you have been convinced that one of the following two things are true:

1. You deserve to be condemned to eternal punishment.

Or

2. You are convinced that God is so evil and unreasonable that God will condemn you to eternal punishment for petty reasons.

Unless you have been convinced of one of these two things why would you think it's important to believe in Jesus?

In this passage Jesus did not say anything about how the 99 sheep were saved. Saying that they were saved by the own righteousness simply because their need of salvation is not mentioned explicitly is purely imaginative and not found in the text. Anyone is free to believe this, but do not pretend that it is found in the NT.

Again, why do you always take such a negative view?

Who taught you to think of this religion in such a way?

Jesus said that the righteous will go into life eternal. Here he says that there is more joy in heaven over one repented sinner than for ninety and nine righteous just people.

That certainly appears to be saying that just righteous people going to heaven is nothing unusual.

We also have Luke 6:37 where Jesus proclaims precisely what you can do to insure your eternal life in heaven.

Unless you want to call Jesus a liar? But why would you do that just for the sake of making Christianity a disgusting depressing religion?

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

If you qualify for Luke 6:37 then according to Jesus you will not be condemned.

Why do you not trust words attributed to Jesus? Have you been convinced that he never said these things? Or do you think that Jesus is a liar and can't be trusted to mean what he says?

If you qualify for Luke 6:37, according to Jesus you won't even be judged at all on Judgement day. You will be forgiven your sins, and you most definitely will not be condemned.

So if you qualify for Luke 6:37 on Judgement Day, Jesus will greet you, take you directly to the gates of heaven, and tell you to go right in. There won't even need to be any trial for you, because Jesus promised that you won't be judged, you will be forgiven, and you can't be condemned. So there won't be any need to even have a trial for you.

Sure, you can argue until your blue in the face that you would rather twist this into something disgusting and depressing where no man can escape judgement and potential condemnation.

But why in the world would you ever do such a thing?

Why are you so hell-bent on demanding that Christianity is a hopeless religion where there is no escape from condemnation save for believing that Jesus had to be crucified to pay for your evil unworthy soul?

Where does that even come from?

I'll tell you where it comes from. It comes from Paul, not from Jesus.

Christians have chosen to worship Paul and reject Jesus.

They have chosen to make their religion into self-derogatory theology where they are unworthy of God and can only be save via grace through Jesus via undeserved amnesty for being the hopeless evil creatures they are.

But why?

Why are Christians so hell-bent on condemning themselves to such a hopeless desperate situation? Why do they insist that their religion is so disgusting?

Why do they insist that Jesus himself was a liar who's words cannot be trusted?

Why?

Who taught you to view Christianity in such a negative light?

Why are you so convinced that a supposedly benevolent loving God is so anxious to condemn you to everlasting punishment?

Do you genuinely feel that you are such a horrible person that you deserve everlasting punishment?

Or have you been convinced that God is a totally unreasonable crazed lunatic who is determined to condemn you for the slightest trivial and petty reasons?

I just don't understand why Christians are so convinced that their God is such a mean and hateful monster that he would condemn them for trivial petty reasons.

Either that, or I don't understand why they see themselves as being such horrible people that the are convinced that they do indeed deserve to be damned.

Christianity is an extremely negative and hopeless theology.

Even if I accept your views on this religion, all that could mean is that either God is an unreasonable hateful monster who condemns humans for petty reasons, or that I am such a disgustingly evil person that I need to beg for mercy to be accepted into a heaven where I don't even belong.

What sense does any of that make?

Also, for me to accept your views on this religion would require that I reject words attributed to Jesus.

Jesus is telling me that it's not important to believe in him, or in his words, and that I can trust God to judge me fairly without him.

Jesus is telling me that ninety and nine people out of every hundred who go to heaven do so based on their own righteousness as just persons. And it's only the occasional repented sinner that warrants a party in heaven.

Jesus is telling me that if I don't judge others, I won't be judged.

Jesus is telling me that if I don't condemn others, I won't be condemned.

Jesus is telling me that if I forgive others, I will be forgiven.

You, on the other hand, are demanding that Jesus is lying about all of this.

Why should I believe you over Jesus?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 53 by Divine Insight]

There is no point in me reading the rest of your post beyond your statement above

That is more than likely the best move you can make, and one I have expected.

Becoming a Christian was never a "major life decision" for me.

In fact, that's the topic of this thread. Why would believing in Christianity be a "major life decision"?

If choosing to believe in Christianity was a "major life's decision" for you, then perhaps you can explain to us why that is the case?

How would you chose to live your life differently if you didn't believe in Christianity?

Please explain. That's the whole point of this thread.

Okay, allow me to attempt to explain this to you. When you were a Christian, did you go to Church several days a week? In a year, how many hours do you imagine that would be? Did you spend any time in prayer, to a God you are now convinced does not exist? I would ask if you spent any time reading, and studying the Bible, but apparently you did not? However, did you spend any time in Bible studies with others? Did you spend any time whatsoever, doing any sort of missions, with, and, or for the Church? How much time of your life would have been spent on Church activities? And then, did you happen to give a good portion of your income to the Church? Now, do you really want to tell me that making the decision to become a Christian, is not a major life decision?

And finally, if you weren't even a believer until you had what you believed to be irrefutable facts and evidence

Well no! There you go adding words, because I have never said, "irrefutable".

Then guess what? That would mean that you never actually make a "choice" to believe it, but rather you became convinced that you have "no choice" but to believe it.

Here, you are mixing words up, because there is a difference between believing Christianity to be true, (which would not be a choice), as opposed to making a decision to become a Christian (which clearly is a choice). Therefore, what I have been saying is, "you made a major life decision to become a Christian". I have not said, "you made a major life decision, to believe Christianity to be true".

So you are basically arguing that you have no choice but to believe it because, according to you, you refused to believe it until you had irrefutable facts and evidence that it was true.

Take out the word, "irrefutable" and you would be close to being correct.

Jesus wanted people to believe in him without evidence. Remember the doubting Thomas?

UMMM? I wonder why Jesus went on to show Thomas the evidence then, and I also wonder why he is reported to have shown himself to others as well?

Yet your argument requires that you are the ultimate doubting Thomas.

I can assure you that I am, and my friends, and family will confirm this. Most think I am critical to a fault.

Only after you have been convinced that you have "no choice" but to believe were you willing to believe.

Again, believing is far different than, "making the decision to become a Christian".

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

I should have done it sooner, but this is off-topic and so I've started another thread, if you want to continue discussing this. Here is the link: viewtopic.php?p=994312#994312

[Divine Insight]

When you were a Christian, did you go to Church several days a week? In a year, how many hours do you imagine that would be?

I only went top church on Sundays because that's all that is required by our church. Also what does going to church have to do with believing in Jesus? Where did Jesus ever tell anyone to go to church?

When I was a child I went to church because I would be in the doghouse with my parents if I didn't. Not because I thought that God or Jesus would give a hoot about going to church. Why should they?

Did you spend any time in prayer, to a God you are now convinced does not exist?

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?

I also didn't spend long period of time in prayer. Unlike many theists I don't see any reason to think that God is inept at communication. I simple short prayer that states what I would like for God to know is more than sufficient. In fact, even that is ridiculous if you stop and think about it. Why should I need to stop and make a deliberate attempt to communicate with God when he already supposedly knows ever thought and intention I have?

He should already be fully aware of anything I might choose to pray to him about long before I even do it.

Christians are apparently convinced that God has no clue what they need, or desire, and that he's apparently so hard of hearing, or so inattentive that they need to repeat their prayers to him like as if he has Alzheimer's disease.

I would ask if you spent any time reading, and studying the Bible, but apparently you did not?

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 contradictions.

However, did you spend any time in Bible studies with others?

Yes, and it was the same story there as well. I would question contradictory things in the Bible and bring them up. But the others would make lame excuses for these contradictions that didn't hold water. Or resort to the previous things they had been brainwashed to say, "We need to have faith that God has the answers". That's not an explanation. All that amounts to is an open confession that there are indeed serious problems with the Bible that cannot be resolved.

Did you spend any time whatsoever, doing any sort of missions, with, and, or for the Church?

Yes, actually I did. But our particular church was not into evangelism and didn't even believe in it. They believed that Jesus taught that we should only tell the story to those who want to hear it. After all, Jesus specifically instructed his disciples not to argue with people who don't want to hear it and to simply kick the dust from their feet and walk away. Our church embraced this teaching of Jesus.

So our church never had any evangelical missions. It only had humanitarian missions. And I had no problem contributing to those.

How much time of your life would have been spent on Church activities?

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.

And then, did you happen to give a good portion of your income to the Church?

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

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.

Now, do you really want to tell me that making the decision to become a Christian, is not a major life decision?

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.

Where did Jesus ever tell anyone to join or support any churches? I don't think that's in the NT anywhere.

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.

And finally, if you weren't even a believer until you had what you believed to be irrefutable facts and evidence

Well no! There you go adding words, because I have never said, "irrefutable".

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

Then guess what? That would mean that you never actually make a "choice" to believe it, but rather you became convinced that you have "no choice" but to believe it.

Here, you are mixing words up, because there is a difference between believing Christianity to be true, (which would not be a choice), as opposed to making a decision to become a Christian (which clearly is a choice). Therefore, what I have been saying is, "you made a major life decision to become a Christian". I have not said, "you made a major life decision, to believe Christianity to be true".

Perhaps our entire conversation has then been for naught.

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

You appear to take the term to mean to join a specific Christian Church and jump through all their hoops. Giving them financial support and participating in whatever activities they decide to do.

I can't argue with you there. Many Christians do indeed see this as what defines them as being a "Christian". They joined a club and do as the club leaders say.

I was using the term "Christian" to mean someone who believes in Jesus and at least accepts that his teachings are true.

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.

I can't argue with you on that one.

So apparently our entire disagreement is based on different semantic meanings for the term "Christian"

We're talking about two entirely different things and just referring to them by the same term.

So you are basically arguing that you have no choice but to believe it because, according to you, you refused to believe it until you had irrefutable facts and evidence that it was true.

Take out the word, "irrefutable" and you would be close to being correct.

So once you decided that the stories of Jesus are most likely true you decided to give your life over to a Church?

Why?

Where does Jesus ever tell anyone to give their life over to a Church?

Jesus wanted people to believe in him without evidence. Remember the doubting Thomas?

UMMM? I wonder why Jesus went on to show Thomas the evidence then, and I also wonder why he is reported to have shown himself to others as well?

Excellent points! I'm glad you bought them up.

If God is so desperate to have us believe in him that he goes around proving himself to specific individuals, then why were we left out of that loop?

Why is it that we have to believe on hearsay rumors when the people back then could see the miracles of God in person?

We're going to be cast into hell for not believing in extremely absurd rumors that are over 2000 years old?

Does that really make any sense to you?

Let's not forget that Christian apologists also rely heavily on their apologetic argument that God cannot make himself known to us with certainty lest he'll violate our free will choice to believe on pure faith.

Hopefully you'll at least see the fallacy of that apology.

If Jesus could show himself to the doubting Thomas then why can't he show himself to me?

Answer me that.

Yet your argument requires that you are the ultimate doubting Thomas.

I can assure you that I am, and my friends, and family will confirm this. Most think I am critical to a fault.

Psychologists would most likely suggest that you are critical of things that question your beliefs. Not critical of your beliefs themselves.

Only after you have been convinced that you have "no choice" but to believe were you willing to believe.

Again, believing is far different than, "making the decision to become a Christian".

Apparently so, because your meaning of "Christian" appears to be to join a church and do whatever they decide you should do.

For me there is no connection between believing in Jesus and choosing to commit your life to some specific religious organization of church.

There are many "Christians" who have chosen to have a "Personal walk with Jesus", and don't bother to attend or participate in an church events or activities.

Believing in Jesus and joining a church club are two entirely different things.

But based on your argument, you demand that they are one in the same.

So now we understand the lack of communication here. We're simply using the term "Christian" to mean two different things.

For me it means to believe in Jesus.

For you it means to join a church club and do as they say.

So we aren't even in the same semantic universe.

We're talking about totally different concepts entirely.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 52 by Realworldjack]

Moreover, the way in which you describe your parents, pastor, and other Christian friends, it does not sound like they did a whole lot of thinking themselves in order to make such a major life decision, and with this being the case, it is not all that shocking to discover, they would not have a clue what it is they believe, or why they believed as they did, since you pretty much have demonstrated that you, and your family seem to make decisions in this way.

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. It has been that way for thousands of years in all religions. Children accept what they are told on trust and communities are held together by shared beliefs. 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. 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.

[Divine Insight]

Moreover, the way in which you describe your parents, pastor, and other Christian friends, it does not sound like they did a whole lot of thinking themselves in order to make such a major life decision, and with this being the case, it is not all that shocking to discover, they would not have a clue what it is they believe, or why they believed as they did, since you pretty much have demonstrated that you, and your family seem to make decisions in this way.

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?

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.

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.

If you see Christianity as a major burden, then you should consider joining a different Christian club. Several of my uncles (my mother's brothers) were pastors. And they were quite happy with their chosen careers. They didn't view it as a burden.