Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Neon Genesis]

I believe because i choose to believe, i remain because i choose to remain, to remain a christainn, i really don't think there are any, if i am not mistaken to be Christian is to be CHRIST like and i really have not seen anyone that fit that word and it is a man made word.

 

No my friend we are all chosen and i am not a Christain,

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? In one post you say you are a Christian but in another post you claim to not be. Isn't lying supposed to be a sin?

 

it is not a physical fire it is spiritual.

And I'm supposed to be afraid of this because...?

[today]

that is a good one my friend

So... you're not a Christian, but you believe in the Bible, God, and Christ?

no i am not a christain, and yes i do Believe in the Bible, God and Christ.

 

this forum thing is new to me let me see if i can clearup the confusion a little i will use an example of what i hear when i read a scripture

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

 

most christains use this scripture to say that to be absent from the body is to be with the father, i have heard this very saying in every christain funeral i have been to.

 

it des not say to be absent from the body is to be with the father is say i would be WILLING to absent from the body to be with the lord.

(NOT ABSENT FROM)

When this body that i have to carry around dies my sprit will sleep till Jesus calls me up and friend after this life i will need the rest.

[Ouroboros]

no i am not a christain, and yes i do Believe in the Bible, God and Christ.

But isn't that the definition of begin Christian? Christian is someone who believe in Christ and the Bible? I guess you finally is the proof that there's a lot of confusion about what a True Christian™ really is.

 

...

I see. You're saying that you're not a Christian because you believe in the Bible differently and interpret it in another way than Christians do?

 

So what do you call yourself? A Todayist?

[Neon Genesis]

I see. You're saying that you're not a Christian because you believe in the Bible differently and interpret it in another way than Christians do?

 

So what do you call yourself? A Todayist?

This reminds me of this article awhile back that said Christians were starting to distance themselves from the label Christian: http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/03/20/chri...stian-label.htm Because obviously just changing the name of the shit they're selling will magically make the shit so much better.

[today]

no i am not a christain, and yes i do Believe in the Bible, God and Christ.

But isn't that the definition of begin Christian? Christian is someone who believe in Christ and the Bible? I guess you finally is the proof that there's a lot of confusion about what a True Christian really is.

 

...

I see. You're saying that you're not a Christian because you believe in the Bible differently and interpret it in another way than Christians do?

 

So what do you call yourself? A Todayist?

 

before i answer i need to clear up the reason i am in this thread i just got net capabilities and just used google and signed up on this site then i started reading and i think i was trying to post some whee else and ended up here and you are right i did cause confusion and i will get better at this. but i will leave this post after this

 

christain is the named used after penticost they where first called the sect or the way.

 

and yes you are right i am not a christain and believe the bible differantly and interpret it differantly just as you probably do.

 

i What i call myself ? Todayist ? havent given it much thought.

[Neon Genesis]

and yes you are right i am not a christain and believe the bible differantly and interpret it differantly just as you probably do.

Wow, Christians who can't agree with each other. What an original idea.

[Kathlene]

no i am not a christain, and yes i do Believe in the Bible, God and Christ.

But isn't that the definition of begin Christian? Christian is someone who believe in Christ and the Bible? I guess you finally is the proof that there's a lot of confusion about what a True Christian really is.

 

...

I see. You're saying that you're not a Christian because you believe in the Bible differently and interpret it in another way than Christians do?

 

So what do you call yourself? A Todayist?

 

before i answer i need to clear up the reason i am in this thread i just got net capabilities and just used google and signed up on this site then i started reading and i think i was trying to post some whee else and ended up here and you are right i did cause confusion and i will get better at this. but i will leave this post after this

 

christain is the named used after penticost they where first called the sect or the way.

 

and yes you are right i am not a christain and believe the bible differantly and interpret it differantly just as you probably do.

 

i What i call myself ? Todayist ? havent given it much thought.

So do you intend to gather followers to your own brand of...um...whatever it is you call yourself?

I think they call that a cult around here.

[Guest humbletom]

Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this. I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes. Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.

It isn't as perfect as you think. For instance, the moon isn't in a perfect path, but follows an elliptic track. It's closest to Earth at its perigee of 364,000 km, and farthest at the apogee of 407,000 km. That means the Moon at perigee is 10% closer to Earth than at its apogee.

 

The same argument goes for Earth and the Sun. The path of Earth follows an elliptic track too. Also large differences in apogee and perigee. And the average distance of the Moon to Earth, and the Earth to the Sun is changing too. If I remember correctly, the Moon is slowly getting further away from us, but I could be wrong, maybe it was the other way around, that it's slowly getting closer. Also, the hour (24 hr about) is based on Earths spin around the Sun, and it's changing slowly too. And there's evidence that in the past these distances and spins and time to rotate around Earth or the Sun has changed over just the last few thousand years.

 

So, no, it's not "perfect" or "exact" at all.

 

You don't believe we come from tiny cells? So, have you heard about the egg, sperm and the first cell that grows into a fetus? You never studied biology? 6,000,000,000 people, alive today, came from one cell. Everyone.

 

Regarding the apes, there's evidence in the DNA to show that we come from the apes, or the alternative answer is that God intentionally created faulty identical genes that only we and apes share, and no other animals.

 

Supernova 1987A is a mathematical proof that the existence of the Universe is at least 150,000 years. It's of course much older than that, but the thing is that even if you don't believe in radioactive dating or any other method, the SN1987A is based on simple triangulation calculation. The world cannot be only 6,000 years old, because then our basic understanding of geometry and triangles would have to be completely wrong.

 

Another side to the argument of "perfect creation" is that, how come a "perfect" universe can only exist if a "perfect" creator created it? Doesn't that imply that the "perfect" creator must also be created? How else can he be "perfect" without being created, while the "perfect" universe cannot?

 

I mainly want to address the supernova thing, but first I'd like say something on the opinions of "perfect". I do not think that the person thinks that the uneiverse is perfect, just that a lot of things seem too convenient to be chance. And it is entirely an opinion whether a circular orbit or elliptical orbit is more perfect. I think that the apogee and perigee both are still in the "just right" range that the person is talking about.

 

Now about the Supernova thing. One should be careful about using the Cosmos as evidence given that there is so much unanwered things. Regular cosmologist also have, albeit to a much smaller degree than a Creationist, what they call the "horizon problem". Put simply, the from far away parts seems to have already radiated into equilibrium, which should not have happenned yet in a 16 billion year old universe. Also related to cosmos is the concept of dark energy and dark matter, which are just names to indicate that we do not know why the the outside of galaxies spin as fast as they do (dark matter) and why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other (dark energy). I had the idea that general relativity might explain dark matter and dark energy because time slows down near matter. As a math major, I thought I might try and prove this. Then I found that first, someone beat me to the punch, and second, general relativity is too hard even for experts just to perform calculations on galaxies and such. Even the current solutions are estimations that were made with the answer already in mind. Tying this back to the supernova thing: If general relativity can explain those, it could also mean that time speeds up enough outside of galaxies to let light reach places faster.

[Ouroboros]

Now about the Supernova thing. One should be careful about using the Cosmos as evidence given that there is so much unanwered things. Regular cosmologist also have, albeit to a much smaller degree than a Creationist, what they call the "horizon problem". Put simply, the from far away parts seems to have already radiated into equilibrium, which should not have happenned yet in a 16 billion year old universe. Also related to cosmos is the concept of dark energy and dark matter, which are just names to indicate that we do not know why the the outside of galaxies spin as fast as they do (dark matter) and why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other (dark energy). I had the idea that general relativity might explain dark matter and dark energy because time slows down near matter. As a math major, I thought I might try and prove this. Then I found that first, someone beat me to the punch, and second, general relativity is too hard even for experts just to perform calculations on galaxies and such. Even the current solutions are estimations that were made with the answer already in mind. Tying this back to the supernova thing: If general relativity can explain those, it could also mean that time speeds up enough outside of galaxies to let light reach places faster.

So you're saying that the Universe is 6,000 years old, because there are unanswered things in the Universe? The SN1987A is dated as being an event 150,000 years ago, using trigonometry and the speed of light. Nothing more is really needed, unless we assume some weird ideas to circumvent it. That I brought up SN1987A was that it is extremely hard to find any other explanation to the age of that event, and it was to provide a clear evidence that our Universe is older than 6,000 years.

[Guest humbletom]

Ok, very good responses, which I won't question. One more question, though. How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc. I do agree I am not here to preach, but to find answers for my questions. So far I've gotten very good answers.

A magical creature spoke into air that didn't exist yet, and things came into existence from nowhere. From the Nothing, where this magical creature lived, came Everything. The Creature was the master of Nothingness, and was the embodiment of Nothing but Nothing. So everything that is is actually something out of nothing, and nothing exists outside of something that is everything. Simple. And this creature did this by doing something inside that Nothing. Amazing.

 

No seriously. Does Genesis make any more sense? God spoke. He spoke? How? Into air? What air? Air didn't exist yet. He spoke in vacuum? First of all you can't speak in vacuum, and not even vacuum existed, since the universe didn't exist. And where did he create it from? From the "Nothing"? How can that be? If he created it from "Nothing", then this "Nothing" must have been something, and hence not being nothing. It's the Bible story that is confusing and contradictory, not science. Science at least try its best to modify and adjust when it discover new things in nature and space. The Bible story doesn't change, even when nature contradicts the Bible.

 

You probably know that He would have spoken in the spiritual realm if you believed that existed. I do not think science will ever discover it because science uses physical instruments which are no better than our physical eyes at seeing spiritual things. OK whay proof do I have of this mystical sounding spiritual realm? None. Just things to think about. The telepathic situations identical twins experience, although this might be expalined with quantum mechanics. The 6 sense of someone looking at you. All of the life after death stories of people who died and came back.

[Antlerman]

So you're saying that the Universe is 6,000 years old, because there are unanswered things in the Universe? The SN1987A is dated as being an event 150,000 years ago, using trigonometry and the speed of light. Nothing more is really needed, unless we assume some weird ideas to circumvent it. That I brought up SN1987A was that it is extremely hard to find any other explanation to the age of that event, and it was to provide a clear evidence that our Universe is older than 6,000 years.

It was created 144,000 years old, 6000 years ago. 144,000 + 6000 = 150,000. Mystery solved. Yet more proof God exists.

 

(I also see some Biblical significance with that number, 144,000. It is in the book of Revelation. Yet again more proof of the divine hand).

[Guest humbletom]

Now about the Supernova thing. One should be careful about using the Cosmos as evidence given that there is so much unanwered things. Regular cosmologist also have, albeit to a much smaller degree than a Creationist, what they call the "horizon problem". Put simply, the from far away parts seems to have already radiated into equilibrium, which should not have happenned yet in a 16 billion year old universe. Also related to cosmos is the concept of dark energy and dark matter, which are just names to indicate that we do not know why the the outside of galaxies spin as fast as they do (dark matter) and why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other (dark energy). I had the idea that general relativity might explain dark matter and dark energy because time slows down near matter. As a math major, I thought I might try and prove this. Then I found that first, someone beat me to the punch, and second, general relativity is too hard even for experts just to perform calculations on galaxies and such. Even the current solutions are estimations that were made with the answer already in mind. Tying this back to the supernova thing: If general relativity can explain those, it could also mean that time speeds up enough outside of galaxies to let light reach places faster.

So you're saying that the Universe is 6,000 years old, because there are unanswered things in the Universe? The SN1987A is dated as being an event 150,000 years ago, using trigonometry and the speed of light. Nothing more is really needed, unless we assume some weird ideas to circumvent it. That I brought up SN1987A was that it is extremely hard to find any other explanation to the age of that event, and it was to provide a clear evidence that our Universe is older than 6,000 years.

I am saying that using Cosmology as evidence that it might be. Using trigonometry tells how far away something is. We then figure that the event took place at a certain time for us to be able to see the event based on the speed of light. Light travels the same speed. But the speed of time is not the same because of gravity. If a galaxy warps spacetime enough then we cant use the speed of light to know when an even far away happened.

Granted, it does not sound like this could be enough to allow for a six thousand year old universe. But I also do now think that I have to take everything in Genesis literal to be a Christian.

[Antlerman]

I do not think science will ever discover it because science uses physical instruments which are no better than our physical eyes at seeing spiritual things.

Which is really interesting that we use are physical brains to try to understand, explain, and relate it to each other with, and not some other faculty that totally bypasses ever entering our brains. Since the exclusionary criteria you have just laid down disqualifies science, it can also be applied to all forms of religious "thought", teachings, or otherwise.

 

Sauce for the goose...

 

OK whay proof do I have of this mystical sounding spiritual realm? None. Just things to think about.

There's that word "think". That happens in the physical world, right? Since nothing physical can measure or examine it....

 

The telepathic situations identical twins experience, although this might be expalined with quantum mechanics.

Or that may just unsubstantiated claims of loose, non-scientific speculation, weaving its way into popular folklore.

 

The 6 sense of someone looking at you.

The use of the 5 senses in a highly perceptive way, like animals use, you mean? There is no category in science for a sense beyond these 5, is there?

 

All of the life after death stories of people who died and came back.

Name one.

 

You mean Near-Death Experiences? I've had one. Quite profound actually, but this doesn't validate a reality of conscious existence beyond death's door. I'd say my experience qualifies me as a first hand witness.

[Antlerman]

But I also do now think that I have to take everything in Genesis literal to be a Christian.

With this much I would agree with you. There are plenty who are comfortable enough with their faith to not have to be anti-science to get there.

[Neon Genesis]

You probably know that He would have spoken in the spiritual realm if you believed that existed. I do not think science will ever discover it because science uses physical instruments which are no better than our physical eyes at seeing spiritual things. OK whay proof do I have of this mystical sounding spiritual realm? None. Just things to think about. The telepathic situations identical twins experience, although this might be expalined with quantum mechanics. The 6 sense of someone looking at you. All of the life after death stories of people who died and came back.

Russell's teapot is your friend:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

[Ouroboros]

Granted, it does not sound like this could be enough to allow for a six thousand year old universe. But I also do now think that I have to take everything in Genesis literal to be a Christian.

Exactly. And I'm okay with that. I argue with Christians who come here that they should not take everything literal in the Bible. It is a religious book, describing religious ideas and views, and should not be read as a factual or historical book. There are after all Christians (and Jews) who can fit both Big Bang and Evolution into the Genesis story, and I suspect you are closer to that group. Most Christians who come here tend to be of the other group who takes everything literal, and hence arguments from science do have its place.

 

I find it hard to accept when Christians use parts and pieces from science to "prove" their religion, so when someone argues that "science say the universe is perfect, and only a God could make a perfect universe," we must be allowed to use science to disprove the same ideas. To argue that we can't use science to argue against pseudo-scientific claims from Christians is tampering with the rules of the "game". We can't be denied to use science, while Christians can use it wrongly. If your argument is that we shouldn't rely too much on science to prove that God does not exist, I'm with you and I agree, since science can not prove the non-existence as such. But if your argument is that only Christians are allowed to use bits and pieces of science as they see fit, just to prove that God exists and the Bible is true, then I do have a serious problem not being allowed to use the same tools.

[Guest humbletom]

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.

 

It does come down to reason, evidence, a gut feeling, and that I think I hear directly from my God.

 

Reason: Obviously Pascal's wager comes into play. Also I like to read apologetics.

 

Evidence: It seems Foxhole prayers where you are desperate and make a radical promise to God always get answered. I saw a bunch of things at healing services. When I first became a Christian in 6th grade my angry ways disappeared without any body telling me they should. I was around a group of people who were talking about this blind person they knew regained his sight at the church. Messed up people change their ways when God comes into their life.

 

Gut feeling: this one is self explanatory.

 

Hearing From God: Almost every time I ask God about something I do NOT hear a voice besides my own, which I can easily recognize. However, things always work themself out when I talk to God about them. Also, sometimes I feel these strange callings to do something which I sometimes do, sometimes not; and they are usually to specific and not what I was thinking about to just be called a 'consience'. Finally one time I did ask God about something and I felt this bright heavy light in my head accompanied by a very specific anwer.

 

I am not presenting these things as infallible proofs in the existence of God. I am merely answering the question on why I believe. But I would like to know if any of the ex believers experienced things similar to my evidence or hearing God's voice category. If so, what caused you do discount them?

[Kuroikaze]

I am not presenting these things as infallible proofs in the existence of God. I am merely answering the question on why I believe. But I would like to know if any of the ex believers experienced things similar to my evidence or hearing God's voice category. If so, what caused you do discount them?

 

Well, in a word, the evidence. Christians are not the only ones to claim these things happen. Either all the Hindu, Muslims, Buddhists ect. are lying, , or god does not exclusively work through only one religion, or there is a scientific explanation for these phenomenon, relating to brain chemistry and psychology.

 

1. Lying, I don't find very likely I've known some of these people and they seemed to honestly believe it.

 

2. If Christianity is not exclusive then it isn't really Christianity, at least not the traditional variety in which I believed. I toyed with it a bit, but I wasn't comfortable as a "liberal Christian" Such a position didn't make sense to me.

 

3. If I go with the third option, then as a rational person I must at least entertain the thought that my experiences are the result of the same causes as these other people. I certainly have now way to rationally differentiate between the two.

 

Therefore I concluded that I could not in good conscience use these experiences as a way to validate my beliefs.

[Kuroikaze]

Reason: Obviously Pascal's wager comes into play. Also I like to read apologetics.

 

I'm not telling you what to believe, but please don't use the words "reason" and "pascal's wager" as if they belong together.

 

Pascal's wager is to reason as Ebola is to health and wellness.

[Antlerman]

I am not presenting these things as infallible proofs in the existence of God. I am merely answering the question on why I believe. But I would like to know if any of the ex believers experienced things similar to my evidence or hearing God's voice category. If so, what caused you do discount them?

I don't discount my spiritual experiences. I however don't use them as evidence of anything. They are open to interpretation, rather than force fit into some set of theological traditions.

 

So question for you? What causes you to interpret them one way?

[Guest humbletom]

I LOVE AND FORGIVE BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS ME TO

I think it would be far better if you loved and forgave because it came naturally from within you.

That would be good. But how many of us can actually do that. However, when Jesus came into my life, the bitterness melted away on its own. Now someone might intentionally or unintentionally insults me, and I will have unforgiveness on my heart. I do not even realize it until I am trying to pray. I feel like their is a block and wonder what is going on. Then I will realize that I have unforgiveness on my heart making me forgive and love the person(s) againg. Then the prayer connection is restored. Without noticing a prayer block, I would never forgive and have years of hate built up.

[Guest humbletom]

I am not presenting these things as infallible proofs in the existence of God. I am merely answering the question on why I believe. But I would like to know if any of the ex believers experienced things similar to my evidence or hearing God's voice category. If so, what caused you do discount them?

 

Well, in a word, the evidence. Christians are not the only ones to claim these things happen. Either all the Hindu, Muslims, Buddhists ect. are lying, , or god does not exclusively work through only one religion, or there is a scientific explanation for these phenomenon, relating to brain chemistry and psychology.

 

1. Lying, I don't find very likely I've known some of these people and they seemed to honestly believe it.

 

2. If Christianity is not exclusive then it isn't really Christianity, at least not the traditional variety in which I believed. I toyed with it a bit, but I wasn't comfortable as a "liberal Christian" Such a position didn't make sense to me.

 

3. If I go with the third option, then as a rational person I must at least entertain the thought that my experiences are the result of the same causes as these other people. I certainly have now way to rationally differentiate between the two.

 

Therefore I concluded that I could not in good conscience use these experiences as a way to validate my beliefs.

 

1. I asked if people who used to experience the spiritual things that I was talking about decided to leave. If you experienced them, you would know people are not lying.

2. Because people from other religions experience spiritual things, you would want to discount your own and no longer experience the presence of God.

3. There probably is some chemical things going on. That does not mean there is not something else going on. Does adrenalin cause stress or does stress cause adrenalin?

[Guest humbletom]

I don't discount my spiritual experiences. I however don't use them as evidence of anything. They are open to interpretation, rather than force fit into some set of theological traditions.

 

So question for you? What causes you to interpret them one way?

 

Every time I have an awsome spiritual experience it has been doing certain things or in a certain setting. These things or settings were connected to a set of theological traditions.

[Guest humbletom]

I'm not telling you what to believe, but please don't use the words "reason" and "pascal's wager" as if they belong together.

 

Pascal's wager is to reason as Ebola is to health and wellness.

 

I am not saying that it is a good reason for believing. I was saying that, personally, if I had a cool head, I could not make the rational leap to non belief. This is because pascal's wager. Maybe intead of reason it should go under fear.

[Guest humbletom]

All of the life after death stories of people who died and came back.

Name one.

 

You mean Near-Death Experiences? I've had one. Quite profound actually, but this doesn't validate a reality of conscious existence beyond death's door. I'd say my experience qualifies me as a first hand witness.

 

Can you share your near death experience?