• selawdivad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reformed Christian. I was raised in a Christian family, and always believed in the basic concepts of God, heaven, hell, etc. But I mistakenly thought Christianity was about trying to be “good enough” for God until my mid teens. Around this time I realised that I couldn’t be perfect, which was super distressing for a time. But then I read Ephesians 2:8-9 which says:

    For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

    This was a big relief, as it meant that I didn’t need to rely on trying to be good enough for God. I just needed to accept God’s free gift of salvation. That’s the moment I would say I became a Christian.

    Since then, I’ve had times where I’ve questioned it all, but I always come back to the resurrection of Jesus. I find the non-miraculous explanations of the resurrection account to be so implausible that it makes more sense to accept that it’s a historical fact. And if the resurrection’s true, then it makes sense to believe the rest of it as well.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have had bad experiences with Christianity personally such that it has left a permanent bad taste in my mouth, but it makes me happy to see people like you, who have found genuine solace in some of its teachings.

    • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This seems like faulty logic to me. What other things in your life do you affirmatively believe “by default” just because their counter-arguments seem implausible to you? Doesn’t it make more sense to not hold belief in something until you have evidence supporting that belief?

      • selawdivad
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not so much that I believe it ‘by default’. Rather, when I’ve examined the historical case for the resurrection, the arguments that it really happened seem stronger than the arguments that it was a hoax, or a mass hallucination, or that he fainted etc.

        • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry if this comes off as rude or blunt, but here goes:

          I am not aware of any evidence that resurrection is possible, or indeed that anything that could be called “supernatural” is real. Don’t you need to establish that before you can claim that arguments for a flipping resurrection seem strong? What am I missing here?