Why do Christians become Christians?

[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.