Why I am a Christian.

[Quick]

This came up in another thread about the evidence for Christianity. I'd like to dedicate this thread to detailing why I am a Christian. Feel free to ask me questions.

First of all, my faith is not only experiencial and it is not only evidential. It is both. I have had experiences that I cannot deny have a supernatural element to them. There is also a good amount of evidence that Christianity is true. Does that mean it is undeniable? No. Unless you have a fact like "2+2=4" that is accepted by everyone because of logical certainty, then pretty much everything can be questioned. For example, there are people who are solipsists who believe the only thing that exists is their own mind. But I want to give a defense of my faith because this is something that is important to me.

A little history. I grew up in a Christian home. I have not always been a Christian, however, and was an atheist for a time. Point of fact, I mocked God and people who believed in God (which is fairly common for atheists). I cannot even count how many times an atheist has said incredibly insulting things to me just because I said I was a Christian and tried to make a defense of that belief. I had participated in atheist forums and the like. My hardness towards any and all gods didn't last, however. I recall reading much of the book "Psychological Types" by Carl Jung. This might sound strange, but that book turned me from an atheist to a pantheist. It was due to the complexities of the mind, which I don't think anyone really fully understands that led me to believe that there was some god out there. I thought about it for a while and then came to the conclusion that the universe was a god. The thing about this god is that it created life and beings with agency and complex minds because it wanted something from within it to "discover itself" from inside.

Then, in August of 2018, I had an experience that changed my life forever. I met a man I can only describe as a prophet. He spoke to me as though he knew me on an intimate level even though I had never met him in my life at that point or since then. He was probably 5'8" tall. He was a heavy-set man with a dark complexion. He was totally unremarkable in appearance. He had a little facial hair, but more or less just a bit of hair on his chin. His personality was very mild, but I could tell that he was dangerous as well. As if he could hurt me if he wanted to. He said many things that seemed impossible for him to know about me. More than just guessing. He mentioned two guys who I knew and said that one of them likes me and one of them doesn't. These guys were very dangerous people. They were gang members. I got mixed in with them by mistake. I hung out with them for maybe a little less than a year for a period of time in my life from about 2008-2009 or so. Perhaps before then. But I know I definitely hung out with them after I developed a mental illness called schizoaffective disorder in 2007. I had psychotic symptoms for a long time in my adult life. I no longer struggle with paranoia and other psychotic symptoms. Anyways, the guy basically says that one of them could hurt me if he wanted to (the one who doesn't like me).

He said many things that blew my mind. It was like being super amazed at everything for 3 hours straight. Everything he said was out of this world. As an example of this, remember how I said I was a pantheist at this point in my life? At one point he asked me straight up, "If you call yourself a Christian, you could be persecuted for your faith. Is it worth it?" And it was based on everything he told me up until that point that I said, "Yes, it's worth it." I have had many paranoid delusions of persecution for calling myself a Christian before then. It is why I started being an atheist. I figured if I did not call myself a Christian, then my paranoid delusions of persecution would not happen. So it was based on fear of persecution that I called myself an atheist originally. And he put his finger directly on the things that was the hardest thing you could think of for me coming back to the Christian faith. And it was at that point that I had to rid myself of my fears. It was at that point that I fully dedicated myself to Christ.

There were other things (among many) that this man said and did that make me say he was a prophet. For example, at one point in our conversation, this big white guy with a ponytail parks near the house that the guy came out of (long story how I found the prophet coming out of the house. Longs story short, I was looking for him.) and drops a cardboard box off in the house and then walks out. And after the guy walks out, both the guy in the ponytail and the prophet have this super casual conversation with each other like they know each other. I have no idea what they said to each other though. Anyways, all this to say that because I say the guy in the ponytail, I thought he could be an angel dropping something spiritual off at that house. And so because I thought of this, I realized that this prophet could be an angel as well. But after the guy in the ponytail stopped talking to the prophet, I was about to ask the prophet if he was an angel. With absolutely zero provocation or hesitation, the prophet looked at me and said, "I'm not an angel," before I could ask the question that was about to come out of my mouth.

There are a few other things I could share to get the point across, but that should suffice as far as what confirmed my faith and how this prophet led me back to Christianity. Because he spoke of the kingdom of heaven in a way that I had never heard before. Almost as if in parables.

Anyways, after this experience, it left me with what I call a "spiritual high" for months after the experience was over. Naturally, because of this experience, I want to start to learn about Christianity. So I started studying theology and apologetics and reading the Bible. It was somewhere along the line that I started to see that I did not have to depend solely on my experience to determine if Christianity was true. I came across people like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, Lydia and Tim McGrew, and others who all demonstrated clear thinking and uncompromising faith in Christ. I learned about the evidence for God and the evidence for Christianity.

One of my favorite arguments for Christianity is called the Minimal Facts argument from proponents like the first three apologists I mentioned. My go-to defense of the faith comes from Gary Habermas. it goes something like this:
There is scarcely anything you can find that historians agree upon concerning the details of the happenings of history and even the methods historians use to do history. However, there are six facts that virtually all scholars and historians and philosophers agree upon concerning Christianity. These are the six Minimal Facts used to demonstrate the resurrection of Christ. These six facts are agreed upon by virtually all scholars in a relevant field be they atheist, skeptic, Jewish, etc. These are the facts:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (cannot be swoon theory, twin theory, etc).
2. The disciples had experiences that they believed were of the risen Christ. This does not mean they DID actually see the resurrection of Christ, but scholars agree they believed they did.
3. The message of the resurrection was proclaimed very early after the death of Christ. A lot of historians would put this within months of Christ's death (cannot be a legend).
4. The belief that Jesus' disciples had in the resurrection of Christ was the event in history that turned the religious world upside down. The Disciples were so resolute in their belief that Christ rose from the dead that they were willing to die for their belief.
5. The conversion of James the brother of Jesus. Jesus' family thought he was schizophrenic when he was alive. But James was converted after Christ died. So it is reasoned that Christ appeared to James after he died.
6. the conversion of Apostle Paul who was a former persecutor of Christians and had nothing to gain from converting (and it actually cost Paul a great deal for his faith). Paul had an encounter with Christ about 2-3 years after Christ had died.

That's what I have for now. I'm open to questions.

 

[Polaris]

I came across people like William Lane Craig [...] and others who all demonstrated clear thinking [...]

William Lane Craig claims that his version of God was justified in ordering the slaughter of infants in the Old Testament because babies get a free ticket to heaven. By that logic, Christians may as well kill every baby they come across. I also find his theories about the nature of God to be extremely outlandish, with little basis in objective reality.

 

[Totenkindly]

I would rather hear you talk about your own life and growth as a person over time, versus litigating other people's apologetics and rehashed logic in a misguided attempt to argue others into accepting your version of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Quick]

William Lane Craig claims that his version of God was justified in ordering the slaughter of infants in the Old Testament because babies get a free ticket to heaven. By that logic, Christians may as well kill every baby they come across. I also find his theories about the nature of God to be extremely outlandish, with little basis in objective reality.

Then you don't understand his position very well.

 

[Quick]

misguided attempt to argue others into accepting your version

Easy to say.

 

[Quick]

I would rather hear you talk about your own life and growth as a person over time

Of course, I could talk about this but this is kinda beside the main point. You attack my motive without actually addressing what I have said. Kinda hard to talk about how I have changed when at the same time you are sort of denying that by saying I am "misguided" and only concerned with "your version" etc. Basically, you would not be able to see the change anyway because you are starting from the point of being critical.

 

[Totenkindly]

Lol. You took this very personally, when it wasnt meant that way. You should also avoid assumptions about the original religious backgrounds of the people you are talking to.

Getting back to my actual point: maybe talk more about you, less about trying to defend and proselytize some external doctrine using other people's arguments? And don't take it personally when people don't line up with what you believe?

 

[Quick]

Lol. You took this very personally, when it wasnt meant that way. You should also avoid assumptions about the original religious backgrounds of the people you are talking to.

Getting back to my actual point: maybe talk more about you, less about trying to defend and proselytize some external doctrine using other people's arguments? And don't take it personally when people don't line up with what you believe?

With all due respect, it is personal and you did make a personal attack. Probably 90% of what I wrote in the OP is what happened to me and why I am a Christian. If that is not good enough to talk about myself enough, then you will never be satisfied with what I say.

 

[Haight]

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (cannot be swoon theory, twin theory, etc).
2. The disciples had experiences that they believed were of the risen Christ. This does not mean they DID actually see the resurrection of Christ, but scholars agree they believed they did.
3. The message of the resurrection was proclaimed very early after the death of Christ. A lot of historians would put this within months of Christ's death (cannot be a legend).
4. The belief that Jesus' disciples had in the resurrection of Christ was the event in history that turned the religious world upside down. The Disciples were so resolute in their belief that Christ rose from the dead that they were willing to die for their belief.
5. The conversion of James the brother of Jesus. Jesus' family thought he was schizophrenic when he was alive. But James was converted after Christ died. So it is reasoned that Christ appeared to James after he died.
6. the conversion of Apostle Paul who was a former persecutor of Christians and had nothing to gain from converting (and it actually cost Paul a great deal for his faith). Paul had an encounter with Christ about 2-3 years after Christ had died.

That's what I have for now. I'm open to questions.

Thanks for sharing, Quick. It's an interesting story and one that further proves to me a set of random events can result in a life-changing composite experience.

I would say that I'm in agreement with the first three, with the exception of the timeline for number three. Hard to say; hard to prove; and hard to know. But no important to your overall belief and perspective, in my opinion.

I will start by repeating that I don't care what people believe beyond simply finding it interesting. Mostly because I've learned that it's too much work to persuade someone that has strong convictions and well researched beliefs. Heck, it's hard to change someone's opinion about simple things. And I'm much too lazy to donate the necessary amount of time when I don't see a direct benefit to myself. Just being honest.

With that, the first sentence in number 4 seems incorrect to me in terms of the timeline. It's not specifically stated but alluded to it being a rather short process. I assume you know that Christianity remained a minority religious belief until Constantaine adopted it for mostly political reasons. Even then it was a minority religion which, in my view, received numerous unpredictable and rather fortunate turns, just like all religions that have lasted for centuries. Of course, you know that as well.

Number 5 is more conjecture than fact, in my opinion. But I assume you know that. Lastly, Apostle Paul's "encounter with Christ" in number 6 is a bit beyond conjecture, and certainly difficult to call a fact, but rather, more a position of faith. Which is the basis for most of the claims on the list of six. The important point from my perspective is it's okay to believe in something without having all the facts. To take a leap of faith, as it were. Turning those into something and calling them "facts" puts one in a difficult position.

As it's been stated, religious beliefs are based on "faith," at least to some extent. Meaning, more "faith" for some and less for others. Which is okay, unless those beliefs cause harm. Which I assume you can agree that have. The question is, do they still cause harm?

 

[Quick]

Thanks for sharing, Quick. It's an interesting story and one that further proves to me a set of random events can result in a life-changing composite experience.

I would say that I'm in agreement with the first three, with the exception of the timeline for number three. Hard to say; hard to prove; and hard to know. But no important to your overall belief and perspective, in my opinion.

I will start by repeating that I don't care what people believe beyond simply finding it interesting. Mostly because I've learned that it's too much work to persuade someone that has strong convictions and well researched beliefs. Heck, it's hard to change someone's opinion about simple things. And I'm much too lazy to donate the necessary amount of time when I don't see a direct benefit to myself. Just being honest.

With that, the first sentence in number 4 seems incorrect to me in terms of the timeline. It's not specifically stated but alluded to it being a rather short process. I assume you know that Christianity remained a minority religious belief until Constantaine adopted it for mostly political reasons. Even then it was a minority religion which, in my view, received numerous unpredictable and rather fortunate turns, just like all religions that have lasted for centuries. Of course, you know that as well.

Number 5 is more conjecture than fact, in my opinion. But I assume you know that. Lastly, Apostle Paul's "encounter with Christ" in number 6 is a bit beyond conjecture, and certainly difficult to call a fact, but rather, more a position of faith. Which is the basis for most of the claims on the list of six. The important point from my perspective is it's okay to believe in something without having all the facts. To take a leap of faith, as it were. Turning those into something and calling them "facts" puts one in a difficult position.

As it's been stated, religious beliefs are based on "faith," at least to some extent. Meaning, more "faith" for some and less for others. Which is okay, unless those beliefs cause harm. Which I assume you can agree that have. The question is, do they still cause harm?

Just one clarification. I might be coming at the facts from the PoV that affirm the Christian belief (such as Paul's encounter with Christ being something he experienced even though it does not show it is a fact it was actually Christ even though it is a fact that he experienced something he believed was Christ [see point 2]), but the prevailing narrative of what I have said for these facts is all bedrock facts according to relevant scholars. And you can disagree with the facts, but you are not a scholar in a relevant field.

 

[Quick]

 

[Totenkindly]

With all due respect, it is personal and you did make a personal attack. Probably 90% of what I wrote in the OP is what happened to me and why I am a Christian. If that is not good enough to talk about myself enough, then you will never be satisfied with what I say.

Honestly, this is just pretty similar to the way you were 5-6 years ago when you were posting here. Same issues, same conflicts. You were looking for structure and purpose, you were kinda down on yourself and really conflicted inwardly. Then you met this prophet who seemed to fill that empty space (as you shared above). Did it really make a significant difference in your peace and well-being over the last six years? You seem the same.

People who truly change actually change. I'd find this more persuasive if you seemed to be a new person with peace, acceptance, and some level of grace, but you just seem to be expressing the same patterns you were previously. That's what I mean by just sharing and "being" rather than trying to persuade people to believe whatever it is that you believe. You are viewing this as "religious debate" that will somehow win people to Jesus and your particular viewpoints, and for some reason you think that is a useful purpose; but that's not why people might legitimately find a faith in a divine being.

But yeah, as you surmise, it won't really do much for me personally. I was reading Flew and Habermas' debates in the 90's, as well as ton of Christian apologetics including Laine. Apologetics was my focus for some years, I got into the same dumb patterns of trying to argue people into changing their beliefs, and then it just eventually came to feel misguided and a dead end. Despite being in long-term church lay leadership and having been raised in that faith tradition, my views on spirituality and people changed a lot over the years, eventually leading my beliefs to change. You're not treading any new ground from my perspective, just trying to woo people to something I already have done. But that is okay. It won't work for me, but maybe you still are able to find meaning in it and guidance for your life.

I honestly mean this when I say it -- just make a blog or something and talk about your daily walk with God. Post about things you struggle with. Talk about moments of peace you have found in a confusing world. Basically, share your life instead of trying to prove a point. I don't need you to try to prove a religious doctrine or prove that some guy you met was a prophet. If you want to have people listen and gain something, just be part of the community and share who you are rather than taking this route -- trying to prove and defend what you believe. And always be honest, even if it doesn't support everything you want to believe; doubts are as important as certainties.

This is essentially what I said in my first response, but maybe my explaining it in more detail will clarify what I was getting at.

 

[Quick]

Honestly, this is just pretty similar to the way you were 5-6 years ago when you were posting here. Same issues, same conflicts. You were looking for structure and purpose, you were kinda down on yourself and really conflicted inwardly. Then you met this prophet who seemed to fill that empty space (as you shared above). Did it really make a significant difference in your peace and well-being over the last six years? You seem the same.

Kinda hard not to respond the same way if you are the same person and someone is trying to push your buttons. I have changed, but you can't see it. Your loss.

I honestly mean this when I say it -- just make a blog or something and talk about your daily walk with God. Post about things you struggle with. Talk about moments of peace you have found in a confusing world. Basically, share your life instead of trying to prove a point. I don't need you to try to prove a religious doctrine or prove that some guy you met was a prophet. If you want to have people listen and gain something, just be part of the community and share who you are rather than taking this route -- trying to prove and defend what you believe. And always be honest, even if it doesn't support everything you want to believe; doubts are as important as certainties.

I do have a blog.

 

[Totenkindly]

I do have a blog.

Then I'll take a look, if I find it.

Just try to keep what I said above in mind?

 

[Quick]

Just try to keep what I said above in mind?

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but when you are actively trying to push my buttons to get me upset it's not the first thing I am going to want to do is take your (unsolicited) advice.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but when you are actively trying to push my buttons to get me upset it's not the first thing I am going to want to do is take your (unsolicited) advice.

Consider the possibility for a moment that my aim wasn't to "push your buttons" but actually give you some advice?

Peace out.

 

[Quick]

Peace out.

Bye.

 

[SensEye]

...but the prevailing narrative of what I have said for these facts is all bedrock facts according to relevant scholars. And you can disagree with the facts, but you are not a scholar in a relevant field.

The problem is these historical 'facts' do nothing to provide evidence for the question at hand, to wit - was Jesus divine or just a historical figure? I don't dispute Jesus did exist and was preaching his belief system, and that his message garnered him some followers. There are all sorts of cult leaders and prominent political leaders in history that accomplish the same thing (i.e. people think they are really special, their message resonates, and people follow them, sometimes fanatically).

None of which demonstrate divinity.

In other words, demonstrating Jesus followers existed and believe he was resurrected in no way demonstrates he was. Just like your anecdote about meeting a prophet in no way demonstrates he was a prophet or special in any way. You certainly think so, but that's just your interpretation of events. Now obviously, your interpretation of events is highly relevant to you, but to others it carries little weight.

 

[Quick]

The problem is these historical 'facts' do nothing to provide evidence for the question at hand, to wit - was Jesus divine or just a historical figure? I don't dispute Jesus did exist and was preaching his belief system, and that his message garnered him some followers. There are all sorts of cult leaders and prominent political leaders in history that accomplish the same thing (i.e. people think they are really special, their message resonates, and people follow them, sometimes fanatically).

None of which demonstrate divinity.

In other words, demonstrating Jesus followers existed and believe he was resurrected in no way demonstrates he was. Just like your anecdote about meeting a prophet in no way demonstrates he was a prophet or special in any way. You certainly think so, but that's just your interpretation of events. Now obviously, your interpretation of events is highly relevant to you, but to others it carries little weight.

The topic of Jesus deity is one of the subpoints of the historical facts. If you watch the video I linked, you will see this. He says that before Paul was converted to Christianity there was already a body of work telling of Jesus deity, death, and resurrection. It would also fall under the fact that the message of Christ was proclaimed very early after Jesus' death. Does that prove that Jesus was divine? No, but if you get to the point that God did raise Christ from the dead, it is not hard to get to the point that God raised a man who claimed to be God from the dead, which would vindicate Jesus' claims to be deity.

 

[Lexicon]

The topic of Jesus deity is one of the subpoints of the historical facts. If you watch the video I linked, you will see this. He says that before Paul was converted to Christianity there was already a body of work telling of Jesus deity, death, and resurrection. It would also fall under the fact that the message of Christ was proclaimed very early after Jesus' death. Does that prove that Jesus was divine? No, but if you get to the point that God did raise Christ from the dead, it is not hard to get to the point that God raised a man who claimed to be God from the dead, which would vindicate Jesus' claims to be deity.

I think this is the crux of the issue, here. Many people do not get to that point. It's a point based on the premise that God exists to begin with, and there is no empirical evidence in any area of modern science to date proving that premise. Many people rely on modern science to understand the nature of our existence. And that's okay - but it does mean many people will not accept claims not rooted in modern science as universal truths. And that's okay, too.

That said, it sounds like you've struggled a lot in your life, and had a deeply meaningful experience that has changed your life for the better and brought a deeper sense of purpose to it. It's reasonable you'd want to share that. And personally, while my beliefs (or lack thereof) don't align with yours, I am happy for you that these experiences and this pursuit of faith has brought you comfort and fulfillment. That comes in different forms for everyone, so who am I to invalidate that? Who would you be to begrudge it of others? Any of us?


I am curious - what was your primary objective in creating this thread? To be clear, this is a genuine question seeking understanding, and not a rhetorical/antagonistic one. Were you simply wanting to share your religious experiences/epiphanies/studies, or were you also hoping to convert people who engage here? Were you expecting any specific sort of response from members here - and if so, exactly what sort and why? There's no 'wrong' answer - I'm asking because these things are unclear.

I think it's fine to carry on theological discussion (as well as civil debate), but if you're seeking converts or social validation through offering your perceived proof, it's important to calibrate your expectations of others here, and be prepared for the reality that many will not agree with your approach, ideas, or proof - no matter what you say. We have fundamental differences in this regard, and that's okay. The diversity of human thought and the experiences that shape us works beautifully like that.

​

[1 Peter 3:15] "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"