Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Badger]

What do you mean with "atm?" Here in US, an ATM is the money-vending machine at the bank. But I suspect you mean something else.

atm = at the moment.

 

No to scare you too much, but... I used to say the same...

Yea, never say never.

 

Since you're from Finland, you know about Livets Ord. Right?

I have heard the name, but I can't say I know them.

[Ouroboros]

atm = at the moment.

Ah. New acronyms are constantly being made.

 

Here's one I learned a few days ago: ROFLWTIME.

 

I have heard the name, but I can't say I know them.

Really? I think Livets Ord never really got a foothold in Findland. It was quite big in Sweden, and caused a lot of new churches to grow up, even in Norway, but they probably aren't that much in the news anymore. It was more during the 80's and 90's.

[Guest Brett Caudill]

Hello, happened upon this site through one of the articles posted, and I find the discussions fascinating stuff. I'd like to make an offering to the debate as a Christian and a believer.

 

I remain a Christian, though at times I have furiously doubted, because I find within our world nothing that would deny the existence of God, and much that would uphold His existence. I find it to be equally plausible to deny His existence as it is to uphold it, so while I can understand why Atheists have such a strong faith in their beliefs as I do in mine, I don't find scientific discoveries contrary to the nature of God.

[Skeptic]

...so while I can understand why Atheists have such a strong faith in their beliefs as I do in mine, I don't find scientific discoveries contrary to the nature of God.

 

Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. Do you believe in Zeus or Athena? If not, then you are an atheist when it comes to these deities. Atheists don't all have the same beliefs. The only thing that we really have in common is that we lack a belief in a particular deity. Faith is completely unnecessary.

[Guest Davka]

Hello, happened upon this site through one of the articles posted, and I find the discussions fascinating stuff. I'd like to make an offering to the debate as a Christian and a believer.

 

I remain a Christian, though at times I have furiously doubted, because I find within our world nothing that would deny the existence of God, and much that would uphold His existence. I find it to be equally plausible to deny His existence as it is to uphold it, so while I can understand why Atheists have such a strong faith in their beliefs as I do in mine, I don't find scientific discoveries contrary to the nature of God.

 

Hi Brett, and welcome to the site.

 

The above explanation would make sense for a Deist or an Agnostic, but not for a Christian. Christianity is based not only on a belief in God, but also in a belief that the Bible is God's Word. You cannot be a Christian without believing in the God of the Bible (as your "any gods?" answer indicates).

 

There is, as you say, nothing in our world that would preclude or deny categorically the possibility of the existence of a God. But there is an amazing amount of evidence against the God of the Bible. A simple dispassionate reading of the Bible raises innumerable logical fallacies. Add to that the disparity between the Biblical record and the extra-Biblical evidence, and you have an overwhelming amount of data which contradicts the reality of Bible God. In fact, the only source of information that points to Bible God is the Bible itself, and that's circular logic.

 

By the way, atheists don't have strong faith in our beliefs. We just don't believe. If evidence emerged tomorrow that strongly indicated the existence of God, most atheists would examine it on its merits and make a decision based on the evidence. So far, we have found no more reason to believe in God than you have found to believe in Unicorns. I'm sure you don't have any "strong faith" behind your lack of belief in unicorns, you just don't give it a lot of thought.

 

If you lived in a culture which idolized and exalted unicorns, you would find yourself dfending your lack of belief a lot. But it would not require any "strong faith" not to believe in something for which you had never seen real evidence.

[Guest Brett Caudill]

...so while I can understand why Atheists have such a strong faith in their beliefs as I do in mine, I don't find scientific discoveries contrary to the nature of God.

 

Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. Do you believe in Zeus or Athena? If not, then you are an atheist when it comes to these deities. Atheists don't all have the same beliefs. The only thing that we really have in common is that we lack a belief in a particular deity. Faith is completely unnecessary.

 

I don't mean to presume upon how you would describe your particular beliefs. I only meant to say that I find the rational possibility of God versus the rational possibility of no God to be an equal possibility, based upon the garnered facts. In my opinion, it takes a leap of faith to definitively assert either position. I only say that to acknowledge the pragmaticless leap of faith I've taken. I find God to be a very compelling question compared to the standard myth, and in our culture, it is a question that everyone has to acknowledge and answer, whether that answer is yes or no.

 

The above explanation would make sense for a Deist or an Agnostic, but not for a Christian. Christianity is based not only on a belief in God, but also in a belief that the Bible is God's Word. You cannot be a Christian without believing in the God of the Bible (as your "any gods?" answer indicates).

 

There is, as you say, nothing in our world that would preclude or deny categorically the possibility of the existence of a God. But there is an amazing amount of evidence against the God of the Bible. A simple dispassionate reading of the Bible raises innumerable logical fallacies. Add to that the disparity between the Biblical record and the extra-Biblical evidence, and you have an overwhelming amount of data which contradicts the reality of Bible God. In fact, the only source of information that points to Bible God is the Bible itself, and that's circular logic.

 

I find this argument most compelling. The bible indeed raises many strange fallacies. To me, it remains a mysterious book, but that is something I've come to celebrate about the text. But I don't think I'm speaking of the same logical fallacies that you refer to.

 

As you have said, the extra-biblical evidence does not consistently support the record of the bible. If I take every word of the bible in a completely literal context, relying only upon what context the bible itself describes, I would certainly have to concede a gigantic leap of logical conclusion, and I would have many logical fallacies to defend. But if I allow myself to read the bible in the context of it's historical setting, and also considering the historical consequences of this document (the history of the church), then the 'bible God' truly comes to life for me. Allow me to quote St. Augustine, who warned against such a literal interpretation of the bible in his book, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis".

 

“It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.

 

“The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?

 

“There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’ (I Tim. 1:7)” – St. Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis

 

Within my tradition, we often say, 'if you find yourself able to fully understand the nature of God, you no longer are truly thinking of God'. Richard Dawkins said it this way, "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

[NotBlinded]

Brett, I like the way you think. Welcome.

[Guest Davka]

Within my tradition, we often say, 'if you find yourself able to fully understand the nature of God, you no longer are truly thinking of God'. Richard Dawkins said it this way, "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

 

Well put. Out of curiosity, what is your tradition?

 

Anyone who bothers to read Augustine is OK in my book. Augustine would be considered a heretic my most of the Western church today.

 

I still fail to see why your train of thought leads you specifically to the Christian God, however. Simply defining God as "the God of the Bible" creates a confining box, no matter how loosely you may interpret scripture. Even the Eastern church has a box for God, albeit a much larger, more ethereal and mysterious box than the Western church.

 

I guess what I'm asking is, why not Baha'i? Or simple Deism?

[Guest Brett Caudill]

Well put. Out of curiosity, what is your tradition?

 

Anyone who bothers to read Augustine is OK in my book. Augustine would be considered a heretic my most of the Western church today.

 

I still fail to see why your train of thought leads you specifically to the Christian God, however. Simply defining God as "the God of the Bible" creates a confining box, no matter how loosely you may interpret scripture. Even the Eastern church has a box for God, albeit a much larger, more ethereal and mysterious box than the Western church.

 

I guess what I'm asking is, why not Baha'i? Or simple Deism?

 

My tradition would be vanilla nondenominational protestant christianity. We have many such aphorisms at my church that I suppose I thought we'd invented but that I've found repeated in many christian philosophers throughout the history of the church. It has been to my delight to discover a christian heritage that I can refer to as a tradition, where I used to feel that we only retained a shallow iota of history.

 

At a perhaps more noble point in the history of the church, it was considered heresy to so literally interpret the bible. Today, if Augustine is considered a heretic, I'm afraid that I may be burned at the stake.

 

Why Christianity? I freely acknowledge that I grew up in the Christian faith, which I know precludes me to believe in other than the Christian God; I wouldn't fault you for arguing such. And as I've said, the God that I believe in must be great, far greater than I could conceive of or invent, or that any text could fully describe, so how could Christianity be correct?

 

To satisfy the topic, ("Why Do You Remain A Christian?") I will present you with, instead of a universal pedagogy, a brief of my own personal conclusion.

 

To be concise, I have wrestled with the Christian text, with the beliefs of other faith traditions, and with the possibility of them all being wrong. When I read the gospels, and the accounts and teachings of the man Jesus, I am compelled. I find the claims and the accounts therein to be unlike anything else. To me, they are true, in the same way that to a young boy, his father's arms are true.

 

I don't feel that it limits the scope of God at all to believe in this 'bible God'. Why can't the text be truth, yet only begin to decipher the depths of this immeasurable deity? You might liken my attachment to the Christian Holy Words to some level of attrition from growing up in a christian environment. I've thought perhaps the same, and how could I determine otherwise? Except that I don't feel brainwashed; quite the opposite, in fact. This may not be very persuasive, but for me, it satisfies the topic.

 

Thank you both for your sincerity. I appreciate that you have apparently thought well and rationalized your understanding of these things.

[Ouroboros]

Brett,

 

Welcome, and thank you for bringing a completely new, fresh way of seeing things. One thing I appreciate most in people, is when they try to be honest, not only to other people, but especially to themselves. I have learned in my life that it's so easy to lie to oneself, and it's very hard to break. You and I have reached different conclusions, but I respect your open attitude. Again, Welcome Brett.

 

Hans

[Shyone]

Except that I don't feel brainwashed; quite the opposite, in fact. This may not be very persuasive, but for me, it satisfies the topic.

 

Thank you both for your sincerity. I appreciate that you have apparently thought well and rationalized your understanding of these things.

Pardon me butting in, but I think you may be approaching this the wrong way.

 

You admit that you grew up in a Christian culture and realize that if you had been born in Iran you would be Muslim, India Hindu, Japan, Buddhist or Jainist, etc. That is understandable.

 

But getting to the basics of just Christianity, would you agree that Christianity is dependent on the Old Testament? There are "Prophecies", the God is the same, and Jesus was a Jew just to name three things that tie them together, and if you look close enough you will see that without the Old Testament, there would have been no Messiah. Christianity is entirely dependent on the Old Testament regardless of having discarded some of the Old laws (which Jesus swore he wouldn't do).

 

Start at the beginning. Read the Old Testament and use your "God given" mind to see if what you read comports with what you think you know.

 

There are many reasons why Christianity is untrue, not the least of which is that a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is self contradictory, and certainly doesn't match the OT god.

 

You started at the top, but you should have started at the bottom, because if the OT is untrue, then the foundations for Judeo-Christianity are untrue, and you are worshiping something as real as Marduk. Who incidentally is probably the model for God.

 

I went a step further and saw that the OT god is a Mesopotamian wanna-be god, and the OT authors copied tracts of ancient literature and wisdom into the bible. If their gods were false, then so is Yahweh.

[Deva]

I don't feel that it limits the scope of God at all to believe in this 'bible God'. Why can't the text be truth, yet only begin to decipher the depths of this immeasurable deity? You might liken my attachment to the Christian Holy Words to some level of attrition from growing up in a christian environment. I've thought perhaps the same, and how could I determine otherwise? Except that I don't feel brainwashed; quite the opposite, in fact. This may not be very persuasive, but for me, it satisfies the topic.

 

Welcome to the site Brett. I appreciate your thoughtful approach, your honesty in admitting your doubts, and your willingness to read the texts of other beliefs. To read St. Augustine is quite an accomplishment.

 

I don't completely understand the above statement. Are you saying the Bible is true as far as it goes, but there is much more to God than this- it is incomplete - and that further revelation is ongoing? Unless you grant that, I don't see how the Bible is not limiting.

[NotBlinded]

To satisfy the topic, ("Why Do You Remain A Christian?") I will present you with, instead of a universal pedagogy, a brief of my own personal conclusion.

 

To be concise, I have wrestled with the Christian text, with the beliefs of other faith traditions, and with the possibility of them all being wrong. When I read the gospels, and the accounts and teachings of the man Jesus, I am compelled. I find the claims and the accounts therein to be unlike anything else. To me, they are true, in the same way that to a young boy, his father's arms are true.

 

I don't feel that it limits the scope of God at all to believe in this 'bible God'. Why can't the text be truth, yet only begin to decipher the depths of this immeasurable deity? You might liken my attachment to the Christian Holy Words to some level of attrition from growing up in a christian environment. I've thought perhaps the same, and how could I determine otherwise? Except that I don't feel brainwashed; quite the opposite, in fact. This may not be very persuasive, but for me, it satisfies the topic.

 

Thank you both for your sincerity. I appreciate that you have apparently thought well and rationalized your understanding of these things.

I find your insight a breath of fresh air Brett. I think any questions can be answered when you said this, "To me, they are true, in the same way that to a young boy, his father's arms are true." I would agree 100% and this is an inner truth where religion should dwell and is, IMO, what religion is supposed to do. It doesn't matter if they are true to anyone else or not and certainly doesn't matter if the entire thing is true externally. I think many problems arise when both sides want to look at only one type of truth.

 

Of course this Being, Non-Being, Essence, Mystery is larger than imagination so how could any one religion have it right. There are bits of truth everywhere.

[Paul_S]

With respect to TexasFreethinker's post in the Lion's Den, I'm starting a part 2 version of his question which spawned probably the most read thread on this site with over 41,150 views, and 1,576 responses on 79 pages. It was finally closed due to sheer size, but it seems a question that obviously continued to spark many discussions from many responders. Therefore I'm reposting his original question here in the Colosseum to re-open the question for continued responses and discussions.

 

TexasFreethinker's original question:

 

In the spirit of understanding (rather than debating), I'd like to ask another question of the Christians who are members or guests of this site.

 

Why are you still a Christian, in spite of the evidence and logic to the contrary that's been presented here?

 

What I'm trying to understand is what maintains your belief - on what basis do you continue to believe?

 

If you take a close look at why you are a believer does it come down to reason, evidence, a gut feeling, do you think you are hearing directly from your god, etc? I think most Christians would have to admit that there are strong reasons to disbelieve, but there must be something that is keeping you on the side of belief. What is that, exactly?

 

I'm hoping for answers more explicit than "I have faith". I'm interested in why you have faith.

There are two reasons. First, (which is do to the second reason) I know God personally. (This is not relevant to prove anything to any one else but me.) One cannot honestly deny knowing someone they know. The second reason is the Christ's gospel of grace. Which I have seen denied, but not truly falsified.

 

The reason anyone becomes an "exchristian" is because the gospel as it was understood was falsified to him/her. Either some kind of merit based misunderstanding underlies the professed conversion or having never really understood correctly an essential.

 

The most resent topic example is substitutional redemption. (Isaiah 53:6.)

[Deva]

The reason anyone becomes an "exchristian" is because the gospel as it was understood was falsified to him/her. Either some kind of merit based misunderstanding underlies the professed conversion or having never really understood correctly an essential.

 

The most resent topic example is substitutional redemption. (Isaiah 53:6.)

 

Let me see if I have understood you correctly, Paul. You think that the reason we all deconverted was that we didn't have the correct version of the gospel taught to us? Are you insinuating that all the different Christian churches we had attended falsified the gospel? What would be an example of a "merit based misunderstanding"?

 

What "essentials" do you think we have misunderstood, that if we had understood properly, we would have remained Christians?

 

What have we misunderstood about substitutional redemption?

[Legion]

What have we misunderstood about substitutional redemption?

Deva there is bad ego and there is good ego. All of our bad ego must die. But you can’t do it, see? Because if you succeeded in cleansing yourself of bad ego, some residue of pride about it would remain. So you need Jesus. Capiche?

[Deva]

What have we misunderstood about substitutional redemption?

Deva there is bad ego and there is good ego. All of our bad ego must die. But you can’t do it, see? Because if you succeeded in cleansing yourself of bad ego, some residue of pride about it would remain. So you need Jesus. Capiche?

 

I get your point Legion, but I don't think Jesus is gonna do it either.

[Legion]

What have we misunderstood about substitutional redemption?

Deva there is bad ego and there is good ego. All of our bad ego must die. But you can’t do it, see? Because if you succeeded in cleansing yourself of bad ego, some residue of pride about it would remain. So you need Jesus. Capiche?

I get your point Legion, but I don't think Jesus is gonna do it either.

Damn, I think you're right.

[agnosticator]

The reason anyone becomes an "exchristian" is because the gospel as it was understood was falsified to him/her. Either some kind of merit based misunderstanding underlies the professed conversion or having never really understood correctly an essential.

 

The most resent topic example is substitutional redemption. (Isaiah 53:6.)

 

What a difference between your beliefs and Brett's. Maybe you could start your own church and call it "St. Paul_S of The Condescension". To become a member one must possess assholiness and the ability to swallow a camel.

[oddbird1963]

The reason anyone becomes an "exchristian" is because the gospel as it was understood was falsified to him/her. Either some kind of merit based misunderstanding underlies the professed conversion or having never really understood correctly an essential.

 

Paul,

 

I won't address your reasons given for remaining a Christian. The OP intended that the reasons not be debated.

 

But, I will address the opinion you express about de-conversion. In my opinion, you have either never read the testimonials on this site or you have completely twisted your perception what people have said to fit your preconceived notions of what drives people away from the faith.

 

I think you need to do a fresh reading of peoples' de-conversion stories. Try to go at it without preconceived notions or trying to explain things away to fit your theology. You've got this wrong and you will never understand people until you take them at their word on the truth of their experiences.

[Guest lionkiller]

The universe didn't appear out of nothing. The law of conservation of mass-energy dictates that it was always here in one form or another. Matter can change into energy and energy into matter, but it cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

 

Ok, so let me make sure I understand this. You criticize people who say they are Christians for basing what they believe on faith and at the same time you assume, or HAVE FAITH that matter just existed? There is no doubt that matter exists, but where did it come from? What is its origin point? There is at least as much faith involved in, "The law of conservation of mass-energy dictates that it was always here" as there is there was a God who was always here.

[Shyone]

The universe didn't appear out of nothing. The law of conservation of mass-energy dictates that it was always here in one form or another. Matter can change into energy and energy into matter, but it cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

 

Ok, so let me make sure I understand this. You criticize people who say they are Christians for basing what they believe on faith and at the same time you assume, or HAVE FAITH that matter just existed? There is no doubt that matter exists, but where did it come from? What is its origin point? There is at least as much faith involved in, "The law of conservation of mass-energy dictates that it was always here" as there is there was a God who was always here.

Try again.

 

It is a reasonable deduction based on our experiences and understanding of matter an energy, and the LAW of conservation of mass-energy is not a matter of faith, but of reality confirmed experimentally and verified mathematically. You state that "there is no doubt that matter exists", but then you may as well say "you have to have FAITH that matter exists." No, we don't.

 

Moreoever, if you wish to propose a cohort of magic pixie fairies that cast a spell over the void and created all mass, that is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be taken seriuously. Allowing that we don't know with certainty exactly what happened does not open the door to invisible immaterial beings existing outside of reality and nature. God or whatever attempt at sentience you propose does not make you seem smarter. It makes you seem ignorant. Like many before you who said gods push the sun across the sky, or earthquakes are gods displeasure manifest, or the earth is the center of the universe because we are so special, your attempt to put god in the abyss of ignorance to fill the gap is just another way of saying you don't know.

 

Research regarding matter, quantum mechanics, and subnuclear processes is ongoing. If they are right, they may make tremendous discoveries that will open our eyes to the remarkable nature of the universe. Your "hypothesis" just shuts the door. After all, what research can one do to see if the universe was created by a supreme being for which there is no evidence even now?

 

Maybe you should read about Occam's razor.

[Guest lionkiller]

The universe didn't appear out of nothing. The law of conservation of mass-energy dictates that it was always here in one form or another. Matter can change into energy and energy into matter, but it cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

 

Ok, so let me make sure I understand this. You criticize people who say they are Christians for basing what they believe on faith and at the same time you assume, or HAVE FAITH that matter just existed? There is no doubt that matter exists, but where did it come from? What is its origin point? There is at least as much faith involved in, "The law of conservation of mass-energy dictates that it was always here" as there is there was a God who was always here.

Try again.

 

It is a reasonable deduction based on our experiences and understanding of matter an energy, and the LAW of conservation of mass-energy is not a matter of faith, but of reality confirmed experimentally and verified mathematically. You state that "there is no doubt that matter exists", but then you may as well say "you have to have FAITH that matter exists." No, we don't.

 

Moreoever, if you wish to propose a cohort of magic pixie fairies that cast a spell over the void and created all mass, that is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be taken seriuously. Allowing that we don't know with certainty exactly what happened does not open the door to invisible immaterial beings existing outside of reality and nature. God or whatever attempt at sentience you propose does not make you seem smarter. It makes you seem ignorant. Like many before you who said gods push the sun across the sky, or earthquakes are gods displeasure manifest, or the earth is the center of the universe because we are so special, your attempt to put god in the abyss of ignorance to fill the gap is just another way of saying you don't know.

 

Research regarding matter, quantum mechanics, and subnuclear processes is ongoing. If they are right, they may make tremendous discoveries that will open our eyes to the remarkable nature of the universe. Your "hypothesis" just shuts the door. After all, what research can one do to see if the universe was created by a supreme being for which there is no evidence even now?

 

Maybe you should read about Occam's razor.

[Guest lionkiller]

This is what amazes me. If I say that I believe in a creator, you say that I kill any means of exploring the complexities of the universe. I am not in any way opposed to science, or looking for answers to questions, but I am opposed to thinking that science is all that there is. There are many things that are yet to be known, but that does not mean that there is no God. When the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy were put at odds with each other, rather than being allowed to aid each other the entire world lost. Why is it that you feel you must reject one to accept the other. And how can you at the same time say you have an open mind?

[CalebMcCreary]

Its been a while since I've posted on this site, so I want to state my reasons for remaining a Christian in response to Anterlman's broad overarching question of this thread.

 

Why do I remain a Christian? The question itself suggests willing ignorance on my part in the form of blind fideism. Christianity is not blind faith. It does take faith, but Christianity is also something that can be intellectually pursued, if done correctly. So the question then becomes, Why AM I a Christian?

 

For me, the reason I am a Christian is because of the historical fact of the empty tomb of Jesus Christ. All four Gospel narratives claim that Jesus was risen from the dead. Even the Jewish authorities recognized that the tomb was empty. There are only a few possible explnanations for this phenomena. One: the disciples stole the body. What makes this higly unlikely is the fact that the Jewish authorities posted guards at the tomb, guards whose job it was to guard this tomb with their lives. Scared Jewish fishermen would be in no form to fight these men to physically remove the body from the tomb. So it makes it highly improbable that this is a solution to the problem that Jesus' body was missing.

 

Second: the tomb was the wrong one. Given that the tomb where Jesus' body lay was public knowledge, it would only have taken a correction of this location to refute the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.

 

What other alternative do we have? Inference to the best explanation shows us that if the body is missing from the tomb, it cannot be found by people who are trying to refute the resurrection and the location of the tomb was well-known, we must give some credence to the apostolic claim of the resurrection. This event, unlike any other major non-Christian world religion, is grounded in history. There has been no sound proof given to show that Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead. Given the miraculous claims of this statement, we do have to take it on faith. BUT this faith is not without its evidence. Much ink has been spilled defending the reliability of the Gospels and the NT as a whole, so I will not do that here. In my fairly well read opinion, the arguments in favor of the reliability of the Gospels greatly outweigh those in opposition, so we can take the accounts at face value.

 

That leaves us in an awkward position. If Christ did in fact rise, His claims are true. So you must make that decision. What do I do with this man who lived in Israel over 2000 years ago? If He is risen, Christianity is right, all other religions are wrong. You must then decide for yourself how you will deal with this. Will you accept Him for who He is? Or will you reject Christ and bear the burden of the negative repercussions that are to follow?

 

Why am I a Christian? The tomb is empty.