Why do Christians become Christians?

[drfuzzy]

Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.

Conversion experiences like this have more to do with the nature of human psychology than the message being promoted.  The great tent revivals preached a far less 'friendly' message than contemporary revivals do, but the atmosphere was the same.  Hysteria and group think are not good reasons to adopt any belief.

Not only that, but have you ever been in a "meeting" where there was a Billy Graham type "altar call"?  I have - thousands of times.  The peer pressure is intense.  I have been in churches with a youth group where most of the group invited "non member" friends.  These kids were actually gathering around the newbies, saying "you know you want to", and "you can feel it, I can see it in your eyes".  I have been in churches where nearly everyone in the building ended up on their knees at the altar, because the preacher was saying "surely everyone here has failed god this week in some way" - and everyone starts staring at the people around them.  Peer pressure, groupthink, hysteria.

[Pat Mustard]

Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.

You seem to be using the term 'unbeliever' EXTREMELY loosely.

Remember, there are quite a few sects (say that word quickly) in christianity which believe that none of the other sects (again) are truly christian, because they have the teensiest weensiest deviation from what their sect believes. My guess is Steve is one of those christards.

[RoadRunner79]

---

A good question.   I think that there are a number of different reasons.   It also may be difficult to answer, as I see a difference, in what first pointed one towards Christianity, and why they became a Christian as more of process.   Some are Christians, because their parents where Christians, for some it is a warm fuzzy feeling, for some it is because of evidence, and some through personal experience.   Some come to Christianity later in life, through evidence.  For Blaise Pascal and John Newton and from what I hear a growing number in Muslim countries it is because of a vision.  For myself, it was largely the history, that the faith was built upon, and referencing back to that history.  

I do think that you may be under estimating apologetics however.  A good number of people come to God through reason.   J. Warner Wallace recently posted on this.  Both himself and the interviewer (Abdu Murray) both became Christians because of evidence.  http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/i-c...ologetics/  I think you would probably like Wallaces books.  He says a lot about his coming to be a Christian from what he describes as a aggressive atheists, and his approach and experience as an investigative detective.

I'm glad you asked the question.   I'm finding the responses both interesting and informative.

---

You know, I've not read Wallace. I have, however, been reading about him (from his own online writings and what a lot of his adoring fans write about him), and I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type! 

To start with, he frequently references McDowell and Strobel, two of the worst apologists I've ever encountered (and yes, I have several of their books, from before I left the faith and while my family was trying to stop me from deconverting). His explanations of why the Gospels may be considered valid eyewitness accounts not only leave out the myriad problems with relying on eyewitness testimony--in other words, he paints a rosy picture of eyewitness testimony, which is hardly surprising for a Homicide detective to consider as more reliable than actual studies demonstrate that it is, not to mention the whole "every person who is later proven innocent by science was convicted by a homicide detective's reading and interpretation of the eyewitness accounts" thing--but it also ignores the rapidly-increasing "claims of divinity/magic over time", as each new account is turned in (written), which should be a giant, waving red flag to any honest cop, between the time of the early Epistles, to Mark, and eventually to John. Most laughably, he refers to the (relative) consistency of the gospels and the fact that they were selected by the church fathers for "accuracy" over 300 years after Jesus' death, as evidence of their trustworthiness. What a joke!

I actually haven't read much of Strobel or McDowell though I'm vaguely familiar with them. I think that your comment "every person who is later proven innocent by science was convicted by a homicide detective's reading and interpretation of the eyewitness accounts" is a little skewed. I have looked at the studies that you and others have mentioned, and I don't see the same exaggerated conclusion that you do. I've also not found the "legend" hypothesis to be very well constructed. I've normally found them to be vague references, that don't hold up, when examined closer. I don't know that I've seen him reference the acknowledgement of the canon as evidence for it's accuracy. Much of the discussion, when the canon was established, isn't recorded. However they seem to follow along the lines of earlier Church Fathers, who do stress the importance of a the historical traceability and Orthodoxy back to the teachings that originated from those who knew Jesus.

It's like claiming that, if a committee of Soviet commissars chose a bunch of red cards out of a deck, that it means red is the right color. No bias on the selection committee! No chance that the reason those were chosen is they suited the particular theology of that sect (Orthodoxy, as it would come to be called). If that constitutes Christian "reasoning", then I'm terrified for all the people he wrongly put in prison as a result of his "reasoning" process.

I'm not sure what type of conspiracy theory you are presenting here.

I especially laughed at his attack on methodological naturalism, in which he gave the example of his partner, who presumed the husband had murdered his wife because that was "usually" the case in such murders, when in fact it was the neighbor, and then implied that because naturalists exclude supernatural explanations, our minds are closed. It's the biggest red herring I've seen in months! There is not now, nor has there ever been, actual evidence of supernatural events-- except for eyewitness testimony, the same "evidence" that gives us alien abductions in the Nevada desert and houses alleged to be haunted by ghosts. I'm really not kidding, RoadRunner... you really really need to read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, so you can furnish yourself with a Baloney Detection Kit, and begin to understand the common thread (and human psychology involved) in pseudoscientific, magical claims by "eyewitnesses".

I did read the links you provided.... and I agree with much of it. I thought for a moment, that it was going to lead into scientism, but was pleasantly surprised that it did not. With your comments here, I'm not so sure.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I did read the links you provided.... and I agree with much of it.   I thought for a moment, that it was going to lead into scientism, but was pleasantly surprised that it did not.   With your comments here, I'm not so sure.

I had to look up the definition of scientism. Respectfully, although you used it correctly in your implication, I think you're applying it wrong. Science is a method of testing information. That's all. It is therefore limited to that which can be tested via that method. That which cannot be tested cannot be science.

You are perhaps referring to my skepticism, in which I refuse to accept or acknowledge claims that refer to things which cannot be tested... and in which I refuse to accept things which are claimed but can be tested, but have been shown to be phenomena other than what our pattern-finding brains have told us, as a social collective mythology, yet are naturally explainable (I like to use Thor the God of Thunder for this sort of example).

You are, in effect, trying to shame us for not believing in the magic your cult accepts as real. As most of my family are Catholic, I'm aware of that sect's penchant for trying to show magic (oh, sorry, "miracles") occur in real life... yet those are frequently claims tested via the scientific method by groups like CSICOP and the Skeptics Society, and shown not to be magic.

As a scientist, or "scientismist" if you prefer, then, I will accept those claims the moment divine magic can be demonstrated to be a real phenomenon, and not just the invention of human minds.

And, just to touch briefly, of course the "church fathers" wished to stress the continuity of the church from the earliest days, and to show their audience that their sect deserved to dominate because it was The One True Church™, against all the "heretical" versions of Christianity (meaning anything but themselves). They won, and the victors got to write the history. We have extensive evidence of the Orthodox Christians (en route to becoming the Catholic, or universal, church) destroying the temples and writings of other versions. [Edit to Add: To be fair, some of the church leaders were opposed to this destruction, and wrote condemning the practice.] My conclusion is drawn from inference-- we see the pattern of myth-building, from the collections of sayings of Jesus the Rabbi (such as the Sermon on the Mount) which can be drawn from writings like James and the assembled Q Document, to the early Gospels we have today, in which Jesus the Legend/Messiah/SonofGod becomes increasingly magical and divine with each year that passes. By looking at the way other religions in more modern times, where records are better (e.g. the Mormons), we can see the pattern of how humans invent religions in general. Only your bias toward Christianity keeps you from seeing that this same pattern applies to the legend of Jesus of Nazareth.

Finally, my comment was not skewed. Read the conviction stories of the people who were convicted falsely, and later freed by scientific testing. A recent example I can name off the top of my head is Michael Morton, of Texas. Spend some time reading stories from The Innocence Project. http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh, and by the way I wasn't indicating a "conspiracy theory"... I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

It's not exactly a surprise that people who are driven by the motive (indeed, the mandate) to attain convictions as a prerequisite to their continued advancement in their career would attain a bias that often blinded them to the unsound practices they were employing to do so.

Again, read the Innocence Project's stories, and see how often the police misled the defendants into false confessions, or manipulated witnesses directly (or accidentally), and how many times the DA resisted overturning the convictions despite the scientific information showing the person they put in prison could not be guilty. It's not a conspiracy, it's human weakness... the very thing the scientific method was invented to counter, but which has been slow to enter the justice system.

I'd say the problem, then, is that they rely too much on the human element (such as eyewitness testimony, despite its now-well-understood flaws) and not enough on "scientism", just as religious people tend to do. And that was my whole point.

[RoadRunner79]

Deleted.... posting glitch

[abaris]

And your point is ....?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

(Though I'm sure Chad knows, in case y'all don't know, the word "catholic" is not the name of the church, it's an adjective.)


catholic

[kath-uh-lik, kath-lik]

adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/catholic?s=t

(Definition emphasis, of course, my own.)

[abaris]

Yeah, a point I was trying to make when still debating Randy. They don't get it.

[RoadRunner79]

Finally, my comment was not skewed. Read the conviction stories of the people who were convicted falsely, and later freed by scientific testing. A recent example I can name off the top of my head is Michael Morton, of Texas. Spend some time reading stories from The Innocence Project. http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Not skewed... what about all the other reasons for false convictions, which are on the site that you reference, and you left out? What about those convicted because of bad science? Witness testimony is about equal with the other things, and the issues, that I acknowledged cover a large percentage of those false convictions.

I also think that we need to acknowledge that an overturned conviction does not mean that they are in fact innocent.