Why don't Christians like to talk about the basis of their belief?

[FundiMentalist]

It's been about 15 months post-deconversion after 3.5 decades as a born again Christian.

Though I've only revealed my disbelief to a few friends, family members, and clergy members and have tried to do so as factually, honestly, sincerely and calmly as possible, I'm generally only greeted to two responses.

Silence. I mean people just staring at me like I'm an alien or something. Not knowing what to say. Not willing to discuss at all my journey, my discovery, or the foundations of their own faith for that matter. Kinda like when folks don't know what to say to a post here.

Venom. I mean straight out of the Middle Ages inquisition-style, not-so "Christ-like" mean-spirited, "you're going to hell," compassionless spew. When I try to explore their testimony, why it is that they believe what they believe and do so as calmly as possibly, it's like some sort of B-grade horror movie response.

It seems nobody really likes to talk about the basis of their belief. Why they believe what they believe. And how that's fundamentally different from how the devout of numerous other slightly different and vastly different faiths believe what they believe.

So I guess I'll ask any Christian that's brave enough and polite enough to answer, what is the fundamental, epistemological basis of your faith and how's that fundamentally different than how the devout in other faiths believe what they believe?

Thanks.

Might provide me some insight IRL.

 

[prgallo]

It's been about 15 months post-deconversion after 3.5 decades as a born again Christian.

Though I've only revealed my disbelief to a few friends, family members, and clergy members and have tried to do so as factually, honestly, sincerely and calmly as possible, I'm generally only greeted to two responses.

Silence. I mean people just staring at me like I'm an alien or something. Not knowing what to say. Not willing to discuss at all my journey, my discovery, or the foundations of their own faith for that matter. Kinda like when folks don't know what to say to a post here.

Venom. I mean straight out of the Middle Ages inquisition-style, not-so "Christ-like" mean-spirited, "you're going to hell," compassionless spew. When I try to explore their testimony, why it is that they believe what they believe and do so as calmly as possibly, it's like some sort of B-grade horror movie response.

It seems nobody really likes to talk about the basis of their belief. Why they believe what they believe. And how that's fundamentally different from how the devout of numerous other slightly different and vastly different faiths believe what they believe.

So I guess I'll ask any Christian that's brave enough and polite enough to answer, what is the fundamental, epistemological basis of your faith and how's that fundamentally different than how the devout in other faiths believe what they believe?

Thanks.

Might provide me some insight IRL.

So if your looking for scientific and hard proof for Christianity, some versed in apologetics may be able to answer you.

For me, I came to a point of brokeness in my life and was born again, I recieved Christ into my life. Since that moment, I know that I know that I know how real is the truth that: Christ did deliver Himself to pay my sin debt, was raised and lives today. Not just physically but also spiritually within me. I trust in Him to change my heart and my mind from within and He is always faithful, even when I fail Him.

It doesn't all happen the way I would design it, it doesn't happen on my schedule. It does happen in a much more awe inspiring way, because it's based on faith. I trust in Him that He lives and that He is my life.

Other religions can make their own case, I don't tout to know about them, other Christians may not either.

It's a matter of the heart, not the mind.

I don't know if that helps or not, as they say, it is what it is.

 

[FundiMentalist]

So if your looking for scientific and hard proof for Christianity, some versed in apologetics may be able to answer you.

For me, I came to a point of brokeness in my life and was born again, I recieved Christ into my life. Since that moment, I know that I know that I know how real is the truth that: Christ did deliver Himself to pay my sin debt, was raised and lives today. Not just physically but also spiritually within me. I trust in Him to change my heart and my mind from within and He is always faithful, even when I fail Him.

It doesn't all happen the way I would design it, it doesn't happen on my schedule. It does happen in a much more awe inspiring way, because it's based on faith. I trust in Him that He lives and that He is my life.

Other religions can make their own case, I don't tout to know about them, other Christians may not either.

It's a matter of the heart, not the mind.

I don't know if that helps or not, as they say, it is what it is.

A couple questions...

How is a poetically phrased "point of brokeness" different from a more scientifically phrased "time of psychological vulnerability?" And what kind of decisions do people usually make in such states of mind?

When you refer, again quiet poetically, as a "matter of the heart" how is that different from a "matter of imagination," and thus the imaginary? And specifically what is it that you are referring to as "heart" that is separate from "mind?"

OK, a couple more...

When you poetically say he lives "spiritually" "inside" of you, what exactly are you referring to there? If by "spiritually" are you contrasting to "naturally?" And how is that different from contrasting supersitiously from actually?

Outside of these vague poetic terms, what exactly are you saying is the foundation of your faith? And how is that different from the poetic "realness" that the devout of other sects and religions experience?

BTW, as far as apologetics, I've read McDowell, Strobel, Lewis, Boa, Evans, Schaeffer, Habermas, Liconas, McGrath and a number others in their own words, one or more books by each. What specifically are you suggesting that they have to offer? Also, rather than "scientific, hard proof," for the sake of this discussion, let's just put the bar at fundamentally different and at a higher standard than the devout of other "false" religions.

 

[Criada]

In my own search for faith, I studied most of the major religions, though not in any great depth, I must admit.
The striking difference between Christianity and all other religions is that we have a Saviour... and a path to forgiveness and new life. All the other religions depend upon living a 'good' life, trying to please God or live up to an ideal. And I could not do that... I don't believe that anyone can. So ultimately, they all lead to condemnation.
I find it hard to accept that God, whatever you conceive Him to be, would go to the trouble of creating the universe, making mankind, and leaving us in a position where we can only fail.

In Jesus, there is hope, because we do not have to do it all by our own efforts... God knows our weakness, and he has provided a way out.

 

[FundiMentalist]

In my own search for faith, I studied most of the major religions, though not in any great depth, I must admit.
The striking difference between Christianity and all other religions is that we have a Saviour... and a path to forgiveness and new life. All the other religions depend upon living a 'good' life, trying to please God or live up to an ideal. And I could not do that... I don't believe that anyone can. So ultimately, they all lead to condemnation.

Technically Christianity has the claim of a saviour and the claim of forgiveness and of a new life.

The interesting question is whether or not such a claim is truthful.

You seem to be differentiating based upon desirability as the means to determine truthfulness.

How is this a good means to determine truth?

Further more as far as the claim of the "new life," demographic statistics seem to suggest that one the whole believers aren't living all that different lives.

I'm reminded of 1 John 1:6.

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

I find it hard to accept that God, whatever you conceive Him to be, would go to the trouble of creating the universe, making mankind, and leaving us in a position where we can only fail.

Again acceptability / pallatability as a measure to determine truth?

In Jesus, there is hope, because we do not have to do it all by our own efforts... God knows our weakness, and he has provided a way out.

Again, it's that pesky claim issue. Claimed "way out."

The issue is how to determine whether or not the claims have veracity. Not simply whether or not the claims are desirous.

Besides, why not just slide into Universalism. That's rather desirable, no? At least more so as a modern like me than what gets done to the kids in the Amalakite villiage down the road.

Anyhow, you've presented a decent case that the claims of Christianity are desirable.

I don't yet set your case that the claims have merit.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how much this is on topic of the OP.

 

[Maranatha27]

It's been about 15 months post-deconversion after 3.5 decades as a born again Christian

Thats impossible...lol you were never born agian or were you a christian. A better statement would be... I repented form professing that I was a christian.

sorry i'll finish reading now

 

[Maranatha27]

Silence

As christians we are pilgrims and stangers in this world, you are of the world and accepted by it, we are not. I would at least talk to though .

 

[Maranatha27]

Venom.

I would say that when a believer acts that way it is because they are not walking in the Spirit, but the flesh.
Its a sad result, where believer would do well to walk a little more humbly, because we are saved by grace, but i certainly don't deny the existence of hell clearly stated by the Spirits testimony.

 

[Maranatha27]

So I guess I'll ask any Christian that's brave enough and polite enough to answer, what is the fundamental, epistemological basis of your faith and how's that fundamentally different than how the devout in other faiths believe what they believe?

The fact that Israel is in the land in the latter days as prophesied by the Major and minor prophets alike is a good starting point. My love is prophecy, I believe this validates scipture and leave a great gulf between other so called faiths. That being said I think a true believe will tell you that the Spirit within them is all the valadation the need. but lets talk....

 

[Criada]

Anyhow, you've presented a decent case that the claims of Christianity are desirable.

I don't yet set your case that the claims have merit.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how much this is on topic of the OP.

Apologies... I misread the OP. You were asking about differences in the way people believe, not what they believe.
Must slow down a little!

As to desirability, I agree that it is not the same as truth, but for me it was a beginning.
Ultimately, there can be no proof... the statement that faith is a gift from God may sound like a cop out, but I have found it to be true.

Have you read Kierkegaard? His 'leap to faith' sums up as nearly as I can come to my own experience.
I have also found CS Lewis helpful on this subject.

Basically, my faith is based on what I have found to be true... and what works. And even when I have doubted, God has been faithful.
And, as Phillip Dick has said:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

That has been true in my experience

 

[FundiMentalist]

It's been about 15 months post-deconversion after 3.5 decades as a born again Christian

Thats impossible...lol you were never born agian or were you a christian. A better statement would be... I repented form professing that I was a christian.

sorry i'll finish reading now

Huh? As a kid I used to believe all languages just had to use the technique of adding a final "s" to words to make plurals. In my 20s I learned Japanese. No such concept as plural in Japanese. I was wrong. I learned.

 

[FundiMentalist]

Silence

As christians we are pilgrims and stangers in this world, you are of the world and accepted by it, we are not. I would at least talk to though .

OK... Such metaphorical speak could fit those in monastic life across Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Catholocism, ...

Amish fit quite nicely into your few sentences.

If you're seriously talking "pilgrims," are you some sort of separatist from the Church of England.

Seriously, saying you're different is anything but a unique claim.

 

[FundiMentalist]

Venom.

I would say that when a believer acts that way it is because they are not walking in the Spirit, but the flesh.

What exactly are you talking about here???

Its a sad result, where believer would do well to walk a little more humbly, because we are saved by grace, but i certainly don't deny the existence of hell clearly stated by the Spirits testimony.

Ditto. Are you saying there's a voice in your head that tells you about the realities of a hell or a non-hell? Where exactly is that voice coming from?

 

[FundiMentalist]

So I guess I'll ask any Christian that's brave enough and polite enough to answer, what is the fundamental, epistemological basis of your faith and how's that fundamentally different than how the devout in other faiths believe what they believe?

The fact that Israel is in the land in the latter days as prophesied by the Major and minor prophets alike is a good starting point. My love is prophecy, I believe this validates scipture and leave a great gulf between other so called faiths. That being said I think a true believe will tell you that the Spirit within them is all the valadation the need. but lets talk....

OK...

Sounds like a start for trying to build a case for Judaism. Or even Mormonism + Jehovah's Witnesses on the other let's-keep-tweaking-the-story-as-we-go-along hand.

So basically, you're saying you've picked your religious beliefs based upon who does the best predictions of future events???

And then worship that???

Do you, like, venerate weather computers too?

Tables that predict eclipses and that?

There are a good number of scientific fields that make incredibly detailed and accurate predictions about certain things.

Just not sure how this is a foundation.

Besides, my OP was more about why most folks don't want to explore this sort of stuff. Any ideas on that?

 

[FundiMentalist]

Apologies... I misread the OP. You were asking about differences in the way people believe, not what they believe.
Must slow down a little!

As to desirability, I agree that it is not the same as truth, but for me it was a beginning.

Desirability as a beginning to discover truth. Bias in "hoping that it is so" as a means of determining "it truly is so."

Post-deconversion, I often get accused of various metaphors by believers.

An example is the "scales over your eyes" metaphor.

I'm completely reminded of that in this context as well as what's called a confirmation bias in the cognitive sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

Desirabily as a first step to truth feels really, really shaky. Bible calls Satan a deceiver and all that. Seems to be someone / something not based in truth would have to really on such techniques to convince.

Ultimately, there can be no proof... the statement that faith is a gift from God may sound like a cop out, but I have found it to be true.

How did you get from the desirability to that vague "found it to be true?"

Have you read Kierkegaard? His 'leap to faith' sums up as nearly as I can come to my own experience.
I have also found CS Lewis helpful on this subject.

I've read about a couple dozen books by leading apologists.

Basically, my faith is based on what I have found to be true... and what works. And even when I have doubted, God has been faithful.

Ah... "It works." Basically a flavor of postmodern pragmatism.

Problem for me though is the whole, "it works" angle is that it seems self centered rather than truth centered and can lead to might-makes-right consequences.

Again, my questions were about how it is materially different from why the devout of other faiths believe what they believe.

You won't have to search in India very hard to find a Hindu whose Hinduism "works" for them. You just might find the better part of a billion of them.

And, as Phillip Dick has said:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

That has been true in my experience

Exactly. Something being true and being believed to be true are completely separate matters. And more strongly believing something to be true does not, for things in the real world, make them more true.

So back to the OP, why is it generally folks don't like to talk about this stuff?

 

[prgallo]

A couple questions...

How is a poetically phrased "point of brokeness" different from a more scientifically phrased "time of psychological vulnerability?" And what kind of decisions do people usually make in such states of mind?

When you refer, again quiet poetically, as a "matter of the heart" how is that different from a "matter of imagination," and thus the imaginary? And specifically what is it that you are referring to as "heart" that is separate from "mind?"

OK, a couple more...

When you poetically say he lives "spiritually" "inside" of you, what exactly are you referring to there? If by "spiritually" are you contrasting to "naturally?" And how is that different from contrasting supersitiously from actually?

Outside of these vague poetic terms, what exactly are you saying is the foundation of your faith? And how is that different from the poetic "realness" that the devout of other sects and religions experience?

BTW, as far as apologetics, I've read McDowell, Strobel, Lewis, Boa, Evans, Schaeffer, Habermas, Liconas, McGrath and a number others in their own words, one or more books by each. What specifically are you suggesting that they have to offer? Also, rather than "scientific, hard proof," for the sake of this discussion, let's just put the bar at fundamentally different and at a higher standard than the devout of other "false" religions.

The difference is that you are trying to fit what I said into a scientific understanding, to then dispute what I said.
I tried to indicate that it's not a matter of science, it's a matter of faith and trust, not of human reason as the wisdom of God foolishnes to the world.

 

[FundiMentalist]

The difference is that you are trying to fit what I said into a scientific understanding, to then dispute what I said.
I tried to indicate that it's not a matter of science, it's a matter of faith and trust, not of human reason as the wisdom of God foolishnes to the world.

Your response would work equally well for a devout believer in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Mormonism, or for those folks who think crystals actually do have special magical healing powers.

And the whole "scientific understanding" is feeling a bit like a red herring. I asked for how it's materially different from why the devout of other faiths believe what they belief.

Science does indeed provide a way of such things, but really I'm just looking to hear some folks articulate something that rules out the myth, superstitious, imaginary type stuff.

That whole "foolishness" angle is quite interesting. Like belief in powers of crystals. Seems utterly foolish and based in imaginary beliefs to me.

Objectively why is one belief set right and the other wrong. Why is it you believe what you belief and how is your reason for doing so materially different from that of the devout of other faiths? And why do so few want to talk about this stuff?

 

[MikeMcK]

It's been about 15 months post-deconversion after 3.5 decades as a born again Christian.

You guys crack me up. If you'd really been a Christian for 35 years, you'd know why there's no such thing as an "ex-born again" Christian.

Being born again is not like some revolving door you can just walk in and out of. Either you're born again or you never were.

But of course, you were a "Christian" for 35 years, so you already knew that.

 

[prgallo]

Your response would work equally well for a devout believer in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Mormonism, or for those folks who think crystals actually do have special magical healing powers.

And the whole "scientific understanding" is feeling a bit like a red herring. I asked for how it's materially different from why the devout of other faiths believe what they belief.

Science does indeed provide a way of such things, but really I'm just looking to hear some folks articulate something that rules out the myth, superstitious, imaginary type stuff.

That whole "foolishness" angle is quite interesting. Like belief in powers of crystals. Seems utterly foolish and based in imaginary beliefs to me.

Objectively why is one belief set right and the other wrong. Why is it you believe what you belief and how is your reason for doing so materially different from that of the devout of other faiths? And why do so few want to talk about this stuff?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything so continuing the discussion is pointless I think. I did try my best to answer your questions. You are free to believe what you choose as are all people.

 

[Maranatha27]

Huh? As a kid I used to believe all languages just had to use the technique of adding a final "s" to words to make plurals. In my 20s I learned Japanese. No such concept as plural in Japanese. I was wrong. I learned.

You sidesteped the point, as expected