What Attracted you to Your Particular Faith?

I understand you a lot better now, His. Still don’t agree one bit :slight_smile: , but definitely understand a lot better. I have several friends who are in the CoC.

And hey - don’t be too hard on Ethilrist - you try sometime changing your freakin’ religion AFTER you’re married. it isn’t easy let me tell you. I deconverted from “fundie” only 6 months to a year after I was married, and it isn’t any picnic for my still-fundie wife, let me tell you. She was not amused to find out that the only part of Christianity I still hold to is that whole “love your neighbor as yourself”.

On preview: norinew, you did great, and Welcome to the SDMB!

Mars Horizon, thanks for the warm welcome. I’ve been reading Threadspotting as a link from Straight Dope for a long time, but now that my baby’s getting a little bit older, I finally found time to join! So far, I’m having a great time!

Nothing. I don’t have a religious faith anymore. It went away after I realized how everything ever used in support of lots of mutually exclusive religions is better explained as the product of psychology, culture and the desire for easy answers on everything from morality to an afterlife.

Sure, that’s easy for you to say

I was baptized in the Church of England, but then my parents took off for America, so I was raised Episcopalian. I’ve stayed Episcopalian over the years for many reasons, including the fact that almost every Episcopal or Anglican church I’ve been to made me feel welcome. I also like some of the principles it was founded on, notably that services should be in the language of the congregation and in having an organized liturgy which covers the entire Bible over a three year cycle. Remember, in the 1500’s, when the Anglican church was founded, the main branch of Christianity was Catholicism and services and readings from the Bible were conducted in Latin. The liturgy was set up, I think, because some priests were selecting specific readings from the Bible and neglecting other ones, something I suspect still happens today. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

One thing I particularly like about Christianity as a whole is the idea that Christ was fully human, complete with all the aches, pains, and general awkwardness a human body entails. While I have no Biblical evidence for this, I like to think He endured the misery of a cold or sore feet or general crankiness, not because I’d wish such things on anyone, but because I know He’ll understand when I get them. My reading on the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane where Christ says, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Yet not as I will, but as thou wilt”* is that He knows there is pain ahead, is perhaps a bit scared, and does not want to go through with the crucifiction, but that He is willing to do it for our own good, Christ at His most human, and most divine. I don’t mention Jesus as much as some do on this board, but this human aspect of Christianity makes it personal in a way that I’m afraid I just can’t find in other religions.

*The verse is the New English Bible version of Matthew 26:39, for those of you keeping score at home.

Reason and logic. I’m an athiest.

Powerful stuff. I remember asking one of my Catholic theology teachers what the meaning of life was. That was pretty much his reply, word for word. I, however, think that the teachings of Christ can be best summarized in the following phrase.

Bill and Ted were truly wise.

As for the OP. I was born Catholic. Went to Catholic school, parents had me go to Mass, etc, the whole nine yards. Once I could think abstractly, I began to seriously question my faith, it’s theology and it’s teaching. I would ask a question, research the scientific answer (if science was involved at all), research the Catholic answer, and research the answer of other major religions. Continued process for many years. Came to the conclusion that, though the Church has really screwed up in the past, the same was true for every other institution that is operated by man, and that it’s theological and moral teachings fit best.

The reason why 99% of people follow the faith they do is because that’s how their parents raised them.

I think 99% may be an over-estimation. I myself was raised Catholic, as I said earlier. It’s not surprising that a lot of other Baha’is I know were not raised in the Faith, since the Faith is only about 150 years old, but aside from that, most of my friends are practicing a different religion from the one that they were raised in. Of course, I realize this is only empirical evidence, so this is only mypersonal experience.

Ok, let me rephrase.

99% of people follow the religion they do because their parents raised them in that religious stream.

Meaning, if you were raised a Lutheran, but are now a Catholic, you were still a Christian the whole time.

There’s always going to be converts to totally new faiths, but the % they make up is very small.

OK, that’s probably a valid point, although there are plenty of Baptists who wouldn’t even consider Catholics to be Christians :slight_smile:

Everything ever used? That’s a rather broad claim, wouldn’t you say? Can you explain how you came to that precise conclusion?

And why should mutual exclusivity be an issue? At best, would it not merely imply that not all these religions are correct? I don’t think it’s a good argument for dismissing them all.

99%? Cite, please?

JThunder: That’s where the mutual exclusivity comes in. If, say, the Liar-Madman-or-God argument was unique to Christianity, it would be valid. But, since it can be used equally well to ‘prove’ Islam, or Jim-Jones-ism, it ain’t an argument.
But, yes, it was an overgeneralization.
Fine. Drop the 99%. Can we settle on the fact that the vast majority of people are the same religion that they were raised?

I get to do whatever I want and I only have me to make me feel guilty about it (which I do a fairly good job of anyway). :slight_smile:
Very few religions mesh with my extreme belief in relativism. This includes atheism.
Hence I am an agnostic, and happy that way.

Shouldn’t this be in IMHO?

What attracted me to my particular faith?

The ministry and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 says it all.

Nope, doesn’t wash. First of all, if your logic were valid, this would only indict Christianity, Islam and Jim-Jones-ism. Religions which did not appeal to the Lisar-Lunatic-Lord argument would not fall into that category.

Second, Islam does NOT appeal to this trilemma This trilemma is used to defend the notion that Jesus was God incarnate, which Islam most certainly denies. I’m not sure where Jim-Jones-ism lies on that issue, but if it also claims that Jesus was God incarnate, then this would simply mean that it agrees with Christianity on that single point.

Simple logic shows that if two religions have mutually exclusive views, this does not imply that they are both wrong. That could be so, or it could be that one of them is right. The appeal to mutual exclusivity is a common technique for denying religion, but it has no logical foundation whatsoever.

Best continue the discussion here rather than take this thread even more off-topic.

Personal soul searching.