Why is your religon true and not the religion of others?

Hi frako, Because I think I have evidence for the existence of the christian God, but not the others. I believe the original texts are the inspired word of God. Since I have no formal knowledge of hebrew or greek, I have to trust that others do and that they translated it correctly.I do not believe my 'interpretations' are inspired, however I do think that there are less areas of genuine disagreement then we are left to believe sometimes in the interpretation of the Bible.

I say 'I think I have evidence for ...' for the simple reason that it is more effective in getting a constructive discussion. Notice when someone, christian or atheist, comes in a discussion with more authoritative claims, like 'This is what the evidence says' it tends to just polarize the discussion and stiffens the dialogue. This is why I use more tentative expression.Also, I have once ellaborated my understanding of 'faith'. I'll do it again here so that we don't misunderstand each other. The greek word for faith is ''pistis''. It is related to pisteuo, meaning believe, and pietho, which means 'to convince by argument'. By this we can see that faith is in fact related to arguments and evidence, logic and reason. In other words, i believe that when a bible author uses the word 'faith', he is referring to a confidence that is not deprived from evidence.Now I know that many christians are guilty of not using the word in this way, they will often say things like ''I don't need evidence because I have faith'' or ''don't about such and such problem, you just need to have faith'' and so on etc. and I recognize that this lead to the overall useage of the word faith to actually be ''blind-faith''. If you reread your sentence, you will notice that this is effectively the definition you are using.SO just to make it clear, for me, the christian faith should be evidence based. If I want to refer to a faith in something without evidence, then I will say blind faith. This is more true to the original meaning of the word in the New Testaments texts. Vast over generalisation and over simplification, not only to mention it is borderline strawman-like, since I've been here for over a year now and I have never seen a christian act like this. They usually always try to give an answer to the objections, even though sometimes it doesn't satisfy you the least, or even though it is sometimes totally uncomprehensible.But of course, if you already come to the table with such preconceived notions, maybe that's why you get no worthwhile discussion but instead get referred to the person to the right

I do in the appropriate forums in the appropriate threads, when we are discussing a particular subject.But this is the faith and belief section, and although it would be a bit off to start an expose of making a case why the christian God exists, I can stay in the more general and say that I believe that the collective body of evidence of the earth's past fits best the biblical account of origins, more then the current evolutionnary paradigm. I believe that a case can be made for the ressurection of Jesus begin a historical fact. And I believe that messianic prophecises have been fullfilled by Jesus coming, and that this is compelling evidence for the truth of christianity.The first point (creaion/evolution) I am much more knowledgeable then the other two 'lines of evidence' mentioned. I plan however to catch up on the second one, as I ordered the book ''the impossible faith'' by Holding, as well as planning to order ''Not the impossible faith'' by Richard Carrier (a refutation of the first book). Both are available online I think, but I like to have a real book in my hands. I will also read Holdings answers to Carrier's objections. (They seem to have a thing going on hehe). This is one area where I can say I have a blind faith, as I have never really studied on the subject more then here and there articles.But I can already spot a little Red Herring here: the past 2 millenia is irrelevant, since the texts we translate our Bibles with date from at most 100 years after the events. So the real question is how much of it could have been changed in that timespan, we being in 2010 makes no difference.

I don't know if this was voluntary, but that last phrase was some crudely bad logic. If they are false about the Quran, then they are false about the bible also ??? I distinguish it as you and I do with anything else. Each belief system makes claims, which can be either true or false. Through logic and when it is possible, you determine if it is one or the other.How did you distinguish that none of them is right ? (assuming you are not religious). With the answer of this question, now simply tell yourself that instead of doing:wrong-wrong-wrong-wrongI didwron-wrong-right-wrong.That right being christianity.

I was raised in a christian family. I was 14-15 when I decided to take a step back and figure out if any of this made any sense. You know, ''age of reason'' where you get off cruise control and actually take the steering wheel.I have an analytical mind and it all added up back then with the evidence, and it still all adds for now.But of course, your very question is totally irrelevant. How old were you when you believed that lions lived in africa ? Or how old were you when you believed that red-blue-yellow were the three primary colors ? Or belief that man walked on the moon ? Or that time is relative ?

Why would I expect ''the overwhelming majority of people in the world'' to have the same path I do ... ??Guess what, the overwhelming majority of people in the world also do not come to the same conclusion you do on this. What a surprise.The truth of the matter is, there is in the end only one right answer to this, and all the others are wrong. Just like a math problem, you can arrive at the correct answer through different paths though. And right now, I believe that christianity is the correct worldview. Try studying Mathematics and physics at University without an analytical mind, then come back to me If you have a point to make, do it. Because As of right now I am not moved by pseudo-logical rhetoric questions.If you want to say I was influenced-brainwashed by my parents, say it. Because I got a feeling this is what you are really implying.

But that not exactly true is it ? I'm pretty sure you do have evidence against christianity (claiming historical inaccuracies, biblical contradictions, etc.). Or else you must have a pretty lonely time here on EvC. Oh really ? There is no 'love your neighbor' in Budhism. I'm pretty sure a homeless is better our western world and it's christian heritage rather then in a Budhist country, where he will simply be told that he must endure the result of Bad Karma in past lives. It either values the life of an insect as highly as the life of a human, or the life of a human as lowly as the one of an insect. Either extremes make for a bad social morality.But this is off topic I guess.

I compared it with Catholic christianity, Islam and Budhism for the most part. Can't say any of this was in-depth, but sufficient I think for me to tentatively accept christianity over any of these at the time.

I'll be honest Theodoric, I don't care if my argument has no value to you without the evidence because guess what, it is not a freakin' argument. If I was trying to convince anyone of course I would expose evidence which I think supports what I think.Because the question is ''Why do you think your religion is true ?'' and not ''why is your religion true ?'', you fail to make the difference between the two and realize that because it is the former.Not only that, but I already mentioned the general lines of evidence why I think christianity is true, each of which can be discussed in a relevant thread. But in any case, I probably won't be discussing it with you because your approach to it is to win an argument and not discuss. (As is clearly evident in this present post of yours)

Are you actually suggesting that child upbringing influences how a person will view the world when older ???Wow, and in other news: Water still wetDon't worry, no worldview is exempt from obvious psychological factors like this one. It does not only apply to religions, but most if not all aspects of human psychology such as political allegiance, line of work, favorite colour and yes, other worldviews such as atheism, agnosticism, Hedonism etc. etc.

Why would it become a ''far better explanation'' just because I agree it is a factor ?? Amongst many other factors ? This is pretty flawed logic.Why is it ok for an atheist to claim his worldview is principally based on the evidence he sees but somehow it appears unacceptable that a christian would do the same. Despite both having all the same other factors as influences (family, national identity, geography, education etc.)The only reason why you want this ''upbringing'' to be applied as ''the far better explanation'' to me, but not to an atheist, is really only an attempted rationalisation. You can't accept the fact that my belief would settle on how I perceive evidence, so you just find some secondary factor and claim it to be the main factor.