Why Belief?

Do you think that sometimes the person himself doesn't know or understand the influences that affected them? You say you had "no sense at all" about Christianity and yet: Despite the fact that you state in message 90 that you began "simply believing it's (Bible?) the truth" and you looked at other religions, perhaps the childhood experience with the Christian church influenced your decision to follow Christ. Couldn't that be considered as a possibility?What about Proverbs 22:6--Train a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it?I'm sure that your church talks about planting seeds that may bear fruit later (in regards to evangelism). Perhaps those seeds were planted in you when you were a young child. You seem to deny that possibility by saying the your late teens and early twenties were devoid of or had a multiplicity of religeous influences.Do you really think that you had no Christian influence in your life before you came to your latest understanding of the truth? None? Your own testamony seems to refute this. Did you even consider that this was an influence on you?Can you see why Shraf and Crash have doubts that there were no influences on Jackel25?

many Christians feel the same way So you feel you weren't trained at all in Sunday School? I have some doubt because that is where the most heartfelt indoctrination occurs in most churches. ...Jesus loves me, this I know.....Either that or you are saying that Proverbs 22:6 is wrong.How much indoctrination did you receive?
What age did you start?
At what age did you determine that it was a bunch of garbage?Do you remember singing songs in church or sunday school? Do you remember being happy in church or sunday school? I do and I stayed away from church for almost as long as you. Another indication of the influence from childhood....or maybe movies Seems like you learned more than you thought. Just remembering a verse after 30 years shows how much had been imparted to you before you left the church.I am not sure of the past influences on Jackel. I think the links that Schraf is making between Jackel's decision and the prevalence of Christian people in our society, is tenuous. I think it is more likely that, in a time of crisis, the Christians were the most likely to be available to help. Also, the evangelists that stand on the street corner is most likely to be a Christian. So it seems more likely that he would have seen Christianity as a way out of a particular critical spiritual crisis. I have to agree that without more info (which Jackel might not even know) we would be largely engaging in speculationHowever, while it is still some speculation, I think you were affected by your childhood experience more than you believe. Actually, I think that the Church and Christians need to look at that and explain why such a "fulfulling" life is given up by so many of the faithful (oh...I guess they were deceived...).Maybe because you couldn't find the answer to the questions that those "intellectual" teachers had to ask about your faith...couldn't answer them for thirty years...and still can't, but now it doesn't matter....because..."it is foolishness to the natural man". Frankly, I don't know why you quit, or why you came back. I have difficulty accepting that you never believed before you left the Church the first time. I just haven't seen too many 6-year-olds say that the Gospel is a load of manure. First, asking questions or presenting an opposing point of view on a debate forum is not impertinent or rude. No one said he was a liar. Pet peeve: People who think that you saying they are wrong is calling them a liar.It does seem unlikely that if someone watches any news program or reads newspaper or any news magazine would not know that the belief of Christians is that Christ died and rose again to save us from hell. The thing we don't know about Jackel25 is if he did participate in society in any way. Again I think that declaring this as an influence for him to "believe" is pushing the envelope quite a bit. As I have said, more likely it is: More christians = more opportunity to interact. IOW Christian people, who are not necessarily evangelizing, probably had a greater influence than getting Christmas off from work every year.

I didn't think it was off topic because I was trying to get a deeper understanding of what caused you to convert. I did get caught up in the childhood-influence thing.Perhaps it seems like badgering. I was just trying to put more detail on the point I was trying to make. You denied those possible influences at every turn. No support for your claim just outright denial. You give the impression that whatever you write must be the truth just because you say so and we just have to accept that. I accept that you think it is so, but not that your say-so makes it so.I was just trying to see if you would even consider that you might be mistaken in your belief that you were influenced by nothing before you chose Christianity this last time. However, you drew your line in the sand and never backed up despite the forces against you. That is admirable in situations dealing with your Christian beliefs. I don't think it is admirable in discussions that don't directly involve your Christian beliefs.Tilting at windmills, I guess.Ok fine....Then what was it that caused you to bother looking for God/spirituality in the first place? You said you read something about Hindu's saying that they knew God was real. Obviously they were mistaken since they weren't Christian.
Since you had denied Spirituality for 30(?) years, what made you suddenly decide that this article had any merit whatsoever? What do you believe prevented you from just saying "yeah right" and moving on?

---

I think so therefore it is so....I thought "Name it and Claim it" went out in the 80's

As objectionable as you presuming that I am lying?You openly say that what I told you about my motives is untrue. You really think YOU know what my motives are against everything I told you! Hurling accusations and judgement while doing the very same thing in the very same paragraph doesn't lend credence to your point of view.Along with that you strongly implied that I am a liar. Why do you think I deserved that? I don't recall calling you a liar. Just because I point out possibilities that counter your point of view does not mean I am saying you are trying to deceive anyone. I'm not. I doubt that their experiences were exactly what yours were...maybe not even close. Perhaps a comparison of theirs to yours would be enlightening. Even if they were the same, what makes you think the results would be exactly the same? I don't believe we are only the product of our experiences. I didn't know that foreign churches were part of the discussion. However there are many reasons for the influence of the Christian church in those nations. One of those is the spiritual climate in population of those nations (as opposed to the spiritual climate of the government). Another may be the influence of the missionaries. Do you think discussion of this may have relevance to the topic of the beginning of your belief? Then you don't believe that culture has influence on specific individual experience? Why are missionaries trained on the culture in which they will be evangelizing if it has no application? Perhaps I am over-generalizing. At what level of individual experience does the culture no longer have any influence? What indications are there that the culture is not influencing experience at that level? You believed in the reality of the supernatural before you read what the Hindu's had to say about their experiences? If so, what brought about this belief in the supernatural?If not, then do you feel that God's supernatural intervention was placing that book or article in your path?Also: What was it about the Hindu's evidence or their belief that persuaded you that the supernatural did exist?

Sorry, bad phrasing of my question. I should have written, "Are you saying you believed in the reality of the supernatural before you read what the Hindu's had to say about their experiences? The timeline of your spiritual growth was not clear to me then. Assuming that you never "had the idea before that moment", what was it that gave you the indication that the Bhakti Yoga was not focusing on "THE God"? When did you know you encountered the demonic, before or after the Hindu book?

I understand now. Actually a very interesting path. Thanks for answering my questions.