Why are you (still) a Christian?

[Data]

First of all, that isn't my objective as a Bible believer. That's your responsibility. I don't care whether or not you believe. My objective, part of my responsibility to, in this case specifically to others, is to provide them with accurate information so that they can be pointed in the right direction. The right direction for the potentially interested party isn't an ideological estimation of whether or not the information provided is true. Again, that's your job. Asking me what did it for me isn't the answer you're looking for. Secondly, just because you have the information and believe or trust in it, doesn't dictate the outcome. Put simply, it's like this. You have to figure out whether or not you believe God is true, you trust him, and you want what he offers you.

Does that make sense? If I give you the information and you decide none or some of that isn't of interest to you, I'm happy, because I did my job. Otherwise it's just ideological, sociopolitical nonsense. Wishful thinking and mythology adopted by apostate Jews and Christians. I'm not particularly interested in any of that, but, right now I'm not here for the sake of my obligations as a believer. I'm here for other reasons. Bullshitting with idiots such as myself but on the other side.

You got questions I can give you answers, but don't ask me to convert you to some nonsense. That's another story.

Why would I have any questions for you?

Maybe you don't. I don't give a fuck, do you? No? Cool. We're all good. Now you can go on disagreeing with me ideologically with no substance. I think. I'm not really familiar enough with everyone here yet. I just respond to text.

[brewer]

Why would I have any questions for you?

Maybe you don't. I don't give a fuck, do you? No? Cool. We're all good. Now you can go on disagreeing with me ideologically with no substance. I think. I'm not really familiar enough with everyone here yet. I just respond to text.

I asked for substance, you didn't/couldn't provide any.

[tackattack]

---

Thanks for the response.

It seems that personal religious experience is integral to why you believe.

If you hadn't have had any religious experiences, it seems the sole foundation for your belief would just be the historical resurrection argument, which itself largely presupposes that the arguments for God's existence work and rely on some very arguable subjective interpretations of the very limited sources we have.

Do you think you'd still be a believer if you had never had any religious experiences, whether internal or external?

---

Wow.. 15 pages I don't think I'm going to bother catching up on. Again @FrustratedFool, please quote me in the reply or mention if you'd like a quicker response, typically I just look at today's posts when I log unless someone specified my username.


No, I don't think I would consider myself a Christian without religious experience and an understanding of the Bible. Mainly because of the definition of Christian (follower of Christ) which necessitates both an "knowledge of" and a "relationship with". The relationship really is the crux of the definition of being a Christian for me. If the knowledge base I grew up in was Hindu instead of Christianity, I might very well have attributed it to Shiva, Vishnu or  Kalki (sp?).

[Bucky Ball]

The idea of a "Bible Believer" is total bullshit. The texts that were included in the Bible, (and the "canon" of the Bible was humanly devised)
and changed from time to time, and in some ways still is not agreed upon by various religious groups he cannot even read in Hebrew or Greek,
OR provide the cultural context from which they were written. His opinions are worthless.
The Bible contains many inconsistencies. The term Bible Believer is meaningless. He believes in his made-up version of what constitutes the Bible, most of which is totally inconsistent with
known historical facts. He cannot provide ANY historical or scholarly support for his garbage. He's yet another amateur internet fraud, who claims to have studied it.

Data has never demonstrated the authority of these human texts, and rationalizes any contradiction or provably false statements.
He's a worthless commentator and has no expertise on the subject he claims to have knowledge of.

[Bucky Ball]

---

Thanks for the response.

It seems that personal religious experience is integral to why you believe.

If you hadn't have had any religious experiences, it seems the sole foundation for your belief would just be the historical resurrection argument, which itself largely presupposes that the arguments for God's existence work and rely on some very arguable subjective interpretations of the very limited sources we have.

Do you think you'd still be a believer if you had never had any religious experiences, whether internal or external?

---

Wow.. 15 pages I don't think I'm going to bother catching up on. Again @FrustratedFool, please quote me in the reply or mention if you'd like a quicker response, typically I just look at today's posts when I log unless someone specified my username.


No, I don't think I would consider myself a Christian without religious experience and an understanding of the Bible. Mainly because of the definition of Christian (follower of Christ) which necessitates both an "knowledge of" and a "relationship with". The relationship really is the crux of the definition of being a Christian for me. If the knowledge base I grew up in was Hindu instead of Christianity, I might very well have attributed it to Shiva, Vishnu or  Kalki (sp?).

So you can make up whatever you claim to be a "religious experience" and pretend it's a certain religion ?

[Data]

Maybe you don't. I don't give a fuck, do you? No? Cool. We're all good. Now you can go on disagreeing with me ideologically with no substance. I think. I'm not really familiar enough with everyone here yet. I just respond to text.

I asked for substance, you didn't/couldn't provide any.

I can't provide you with what you want.

[Foxaèr]

It's always difficult to provide substance for the imaginary.

[FrustratedFool]

---

Thanks for the response.

It seems that personal religious experience is integral to why you believe.

If you hadn't have had any religious experiences, it seems the sole foundation for your belief would just be the historical resurrection argument, which itself largely presupposes that the arguments for God's existence work and rely on some very arguable subjective interpretations of the very limited sources we have.

Do you think you'd still be a believer if you had never had any religious experiences, whether internal or external?

---

Wow.. 15 pages I don't think I'm going to bother catching up on. Again @FrustratedFool, please quote me in the reply or mention if you'd like a quicker response, typically I just look at today's posts when I log unless someone specified my username.


No, I don't think I would consider myself a Christian without religious experience and an understanding of the Bible. Mainly because of the definition of Christian (follower of Christ) which necessitates both an "knowledge of" and a "relationship with". The relationship really is the crux of the definition of being a Christian for me. If the knowledge base I grew up in was Hindu instead of Christianity, I might very well have attributed it to Shiva, Vishnu or  Kalki (sp?).

Given its vital importance, could you describe the religious experience you have had without which you would not be a Christian?

[Bucky Ball]

I asked for substance, you didn't/couldn't provide any.

I can't provide you with what you want.

We figured that out the day you came here.

[brewer]

I asked for substance, you didn't/couldn't provide any.

I can't provide you with what you want.

Seems to me that you only want argument (debate) over the religious abstract/metaphysical. Based on your attempts to do this on an atheist forum I can only conclude that you're actually not that secure about your beliefs and their truth.