Confounded by belief

[2ndRateMind]

Hi everyone.

I wanted to kick off by posing this enquiry:

Can we choose what we believe?

It's a question with consequences. If we can, then an atheist has only himself to blame if he ends up in the pit providing amusement for demons. But if we can't, it seems to me that believers and non-believers deserve identical treatment in respect of afterlife, all other things being equal, since it would be unjust to reward or punish on the basis of some criterion outside their control.

Now, I'm a Christian sympathist. It seems to me that Christianity of the modern variety is by and large a force for good in the world. But I seem to be barred from joining the club on this matter of beliefs. I know God exists. I’m pretty certain that Jesus did, for there is corroboration from outside the Bible. But that's as far as I can go. I can’t, with honesty, recite any of the creeds.

It seems to me that we can’t choose what to believe, for the simple reason that our beliefs aim to reflect reality. We have to think something true, in order to believe it. And if we don’t think it true, no matter how we are cajoled or bribed or threatened, or even tortured, we are powerless to believe it. A dreadful depiction of Hell, or an idyllic one of Heaven, may make us want to believe, but wanting is not enough. Our beliefs, like truth itself, seem to be quite independent of our volition.

Seems to me, this conclusion undermines a substantial amount of conventional Christian wisdom. Like the basic idea that Christians go to Heaven, pretty much automatically, while other-believing individuals have to really struggle to get in, being, as one Catholic put it, ‘saved despite their faith, not because of it’. If we can't choose our beliefs, that would just be quite unfair.

Well, I can’t be the only pilgrim to have stumbled on this particular rock. So, guys and gals, where am I going wrong?

Thanks, and regards, 2ndRateMind.

 

[aiki]

It seems to me that we can’t choose what to believe, for the simple reason that our beliefs aim to reflect reality. We have to think something true, in order to believe it. And if we don’t think it true, no matter how we are cajoled or bribed or threatened, or even tortured, we are powerless to believe it. A dreadful depiction of Hell, or an idyllic one of Heaven, may make us want to believe, but wanting is not enough. Our beliefs, like truth itself, seem to be quite independent of our volition.

Why do you assume that a person's beliefs "aim to reflect reality"? Do you really think that this is true generally? I can look around me and see that this is definitely not true.

Neither Heaven nor Hell are given in the Bible as bases for belief in Christ. They are the consequence of believing or not, but they don't, in and of themselves, serve as evidence upon which to rest saving faith. What is evident in the existence of Heaven and Hell is that God thinks that we are responsible for the choices we make concerning what we believe about Him - so much so that we will be eternally rewarded or punished for those choices.

What you really seem to be saying is that you aren't persuaded by the evidence for a saving faith in Christ. It isn't that there is no evidence for belief, but that the available evidence doesn't suit you in some way.

Here's what the apostle John wrote about this matter:

"And this is that condemnation that light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." (Jn. 3:19, 20)

In the many years I've been talking with the unsaved about Christ, this has always become the main sticking point to saving faith. No one likes to be told they're wrong and most certainly no one likes to admit they've done wrong.

Peace.

 

[tapero]

Hi, It's more that we are called (not audibly, at least I wasn't) but bible says many are called, and for whatever reason; one I do not understand, some, like myself 'hear' and believe.

What I mean by not understanding; is it is inexplicable to me all which occurred when I came to Christ.

Now some reading this may think, well, I must not be called then. Not true.

The bible says many are called and lest someone say that means not all are called as says 'some; they are taking one verse out of the bible and making one verse not contain the very much context in the bible; which no doubt shows that the Father desires all to know Him and other verses.

As to understanding why I heard at 33 years of age, but never earlier, no idea..though I do not ever recall hearing about God, bible, Christians etc.

But a friend of mine grew up where every Sunday heard the gospel message and she too did not come to Christ till she was in her 30s.

She thinks that possibly the churches she was at were dead; no Holy Spirit, no power.

Have also seen others say; it may be that we don't 'hear' at other times as we're not ready to 'hear.'

No one needs to force themselves to believe something which they can not.

Even when I came to Christ with little to no knowledge it wasn't a choice to believe or not; I answered two questions the pastor asked me after I went to his office, and neither had to do with belief.

He asked Will you commit you life to Jesus and I said yes, and then asked Would I die for Jesus and I said yes.

I did not know I was born again at that instant, but later realized I was. The pastor as well did not know; I asked him a question after his two and then I left.

After that without having barely any knowledge of the bible; I quickly found I no longer desired the things I used to. I also desired to read the bible; hungered greatly for it; and for 3 years read it every spare moment I had, which were many.

So, I had little understanding to none understanding at all about Jesus, and can't explain as said before what occurred; why did I hear? Hear to me means believing in Jesus/trusting/committing ones life to Jesus.

For me, it wasn't a matter of believing in Jesus, even though knew little to nothing about Him, but I've already explained how I came to Jesus.

As people come to Christ with many varied experiences I can only tell about the way I did.

Others may hear the gospel, or something about Jesus, or something occurs and they start seeking after God.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong. As I said, to me is unexplicable how I came to Christ.

Also, I had no knowledge, where people here on CF have much information.

My suggestion would be to read the gospels about Jesus if you haven't already, and if you desire to know God, as we don't know God before we are born again, but after. If you desire to know God, tell Jesus that and tell Him of whatever any stumbling blocks you think you see are keeping you from Him, if there are any.

Now, if that doesn't lead you to Jesus it doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong and it doesn't mean that you are not wanting to believe etc.

It just means you don't believe at this time, and may perhaps in the future.

But one thing important is whatever you have heard about God, Christians, the bible, Christianity, even from Christians can be loaded with error and can be and very much are stumbling blocks to many.

Many non Christians will often say Christians are like x, and God is like x, and is stuff they heard.

Is why is important to know for yourself, and seek for yourself and reading the gospels thru, and maybe a 2nd time, and then on to Acts if feel like it and more; then you've seen what Jesus is like in part.

Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus is God..so Jesus who was in human form on earth for a time; is God incarnate. He may still be in human form in heaven, though not sure on that; but doesn't matter. He is God and through Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit is how we come to Him.

blessings,
tapero

Hi everyone.

I wanted to kick off by posing this enquiry:

Can we choose what we believe?

It's a question with consequences. If we can, then an atheist has only himself to blame if he ends up in the pit providing amusement for demons. But if we can't, it seems to me that believers and non-believers deserve identical treatment in respect of afterlife, all other things being equal, since it would be unjust to reward or punish on the basis of some criterion outside their control.

Now, I'm a Christian sympathist. It seems to me that Christianity of the modern variety is by and large a force for good in the world. But I seem to be barred from joining the club on this matter of beliefs. I know God exists. I’m pretty certain that Jesus did, for there is corroboration from outside the Bible. But that's as far as I can go. I can’t, with honesty, recite any of the creeds.

It seems to me that we can’t choose what to believe, for the simple reason that our beliefs aim to reflect reality. We have to think something true, in order to believe it. And if we don’t think it true, no matter how we are cajoled or bribed or threatened, or even tortured, we are powerless to believe it. A dreadful depiction of Hell, or an idyllic one of Heaven, may make us want to believe, but wanting is not enough. Our beliefs, like truth itself, seem to be quite independent of our volition.

Seems to me, this conclusion undermines a substantial amount of conventional Christian wisdom. Like the basic idea that Christians go to Heaven, pretty much automatically, while other-believing individuals have to really struggle to get in, being, as one Catholic put it, ‘saved despite their faith, not because of it’. If we can't choose our beliefs, that would just be quite unfair.

Well, I can’t be the only pilgrim to have stumbled on this particular rock. So, guys and gals, where am I going wrong?

Thanks, and regards, 2ndRateMind.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, Aiki, thank you for taking the time to answer my query. I quite agree with you that Heaven and Hell are not independent evidence for Christian belief, just a part of the whole Judeo-Christian-Islamic mindscape. But, yes, I do think it generally true that a person's beliefs aim to reflect reality. The matter is slightly complicated insofar as a new proposition needs to fit into a whole tangled 'web' of pre-existing beliefs and preconceptions, or it normally gets discarded. When you say the available evidence doesn't suit me in some way, I guess this is what you mean.

You seem to think that people can believe things that they know don't reflect reality. I honestly don't see how this is possible. There is reality. There is the mental model of reality we build for ourselves - our belief system - to represent reality and the way it works. An accurate mental model helps us make accurate predictions about that reality, and so helps us make decisions. The point is, we can't, it seems to me, deliberately build for ourselves an inaccurate mental model. If we think some proposition false, we reject it. If we think something true, it is incorporated to our pre-existing belief set. If we think something true, and it is dissonant with the mental model to date, we make the necessary adjustments, either to the new proposition or to our mental model of reality. But the whole exercise is aimed at faithfully representing reality to ourselves.

If you doubt this, try a small thought experiment. Try becoming a believing Moslem for the next five minutes, and then reverting to your prior beliefs. If we are responsible for our beliefs, and if they are a matter of volition, you should be able to manage this without too much difficulty. But if you can't, and I suspect you won't be able to, then I think that that demonstrates our beliefs are not amenable to deliberate, conscious control, and independent of our direct desire.

So if God truly 'thinks that we are responsible for the choices we make concerning what we believe about him', then it would seem that God is mistaken. But, I suspect that God is not mistaken on this matter, and that the fault lies either in conventional Christian wisdom, or in my reasoning. Perhaps you have an opinion on this?

(Incidentally, Aiki, I do rather resent your implication that it is because I am evil and do evil that I don't believe. Apart from being insulting, which I can forgive, it is lazy thinking, which I can't. Shall we keep the ad hominem stuff out of the discussion?)

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[ebia]

Hi everyone.

I wanted to kick off by posing this enquiry:

Can we choose what we believe?

To some extent. We very often choose not to believe stuff because we don't want it to be true, and sometimes to believe stuff because we do want it to be true (wishful thinking).

It's a question with consequences. If we can, then an atheist has only himself to blame if he ends up in the pit providing amusement for demons. But if we can't, it seems to me that believers and non-believers deserve identical treatment in respect of afterlife, all other things being equal, since it would be unjust to reward or punish on the basis of some criterion outside their control.

If you view Christianity as about "heaven" and "hell" as arbitrary reward/punishments for meeting/not meeting an arbitrary criterion (belief) then that's right. But that picture has nothing whatsoever to do with orthodox Christianity - it has more to do with medieval fantasy read back into the bible.

A more orthodox picture is one of God coming to put right a creation that is in a mess because of our consistant refusal to properly respond to God. Putting that creation right necessarly involves our giving up our way of doing things and following God's - that's 'faith' in a proper Christian sense.

Now, I'm a Christian sympathist. It seems to me that Christianity of the modern variety is by and large a force for good in the world. But I seem to be barred from joining the club on this matter of beliefs. I know God exists. I’m pretty certain that Jesus did, for there is corroboration from outside the Bible. But that's as far as I can go. I can’t, with honesty, recite any of the creeds.

That's unfortunate because Jesus' death and resurrection is how God is putting creation to rights. Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of New Creation, and salvation is living as in the truth of that.

If get a chance, read Surprised by Hope, or failing that Simply Christian. (Both by Tom Wright).

 

[2ndRateMind]

That's very helpful Ebia. It seems we can discard 'medieval fantasies', then, in favour of the altogether more sensible scenario you suggest. I am so glad. And I am quite happy to live as if it were true that Jesus was/is the promised Messiah. I have great respect for him as a man, as a thinker, as a moral guide and as a theologian. Thing is though, I am not sure that the notions that He was born of a virgin, raised the dead, turned water into wine, fed five-thousand with some bits of bread and a couple of fishes, and to cap it all, came back to life after His execution, don't belong in the same primitive fantasy. They seem more like stories designed to impress pre-literate peasants than anyone possessed to some degree of a modern education.

You think we sometimes choose to believe or not believe because we do or do not want something to be true. Well, I'm sure you would agree that whether or not we are right, and the subject belief really is/is not true, the method by which we have arrived at such a conclusion is unreliable, and more likely to lead to fallacy than accuracy. One reason I'm 'stuck', as regards the creeds, is that they are fantastic, (in the true sense of the word, more like a fantasy than reality as we know it), and that it seems to me dishonest to attempt to believe their clauses just because it would be nice if they were true.

At what point do we decide, as careful thinkers and responsible adults, that some Christian beliefs are 'medieval fantasies' and others, no less outrageous to common sense, are Gospel truth?

Perhaps the answers are in the books you mention. I shall see if I can get them from the library. Meanwhile, thanks for the recommendations.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[ebia]

That's very helpful Ebia. It seems we can discard 'medieval fantasies', then, in favour of the altogether more sensible scenario you suggest. I am so glad.

And I am quite happy to live as if it were true that Jesus was/is the promised Messiah. I have great respect for him as a man, as a thinker, as a moral guide and as a theologian.

How do you square thinking of him in that vein and nothing more with the fact that he went around acting and speaking as though he thought he was called to be YHWH returning to Zion? The fact is, if you read the gospels in full, in the context of 1st century Palestine, what he went around saying and doing wasn't some timeless truths about a distant God, but all designed to say "the Kingdom of God is coming true now, centred on me". Take that stuff out and you have very little left, and what there is wasn't new - most of it dates back to Torah and the rest to the prophets.

Thing is though, I am not sure that the notions that He was born of a virgin, raised the dead, turned water into wine, fed five-thousand with some bits of bread and a couple of fishes, and to cap it all, came back to life after His execution, don't belong in the same primitive fantasy.

If they are fantasy they certainly aren't the same fantasy. The usual picture of "heaven and hell" that most people have is traceable to the medieval period - around 1,000 years after the gospels were written - and was made popular (though not invented by) writers such as Dante and painters such as Michaelangelo.

Getting back to that actual biblical material, the key item is the resurrection. It doesn't actually matter one iota if you don't believe in a miraculous conception, but the resurrection is the event on which it does all hinge - either New Creation began, God's future restored, redeemed, Kingdom jumped forward into the present in anticipation of the final resurrection - or it didn't. If it didn't, living as though it had would be a sick joke. The reason we can be sure of God's future kingdom, and live as though that had already begun, is because it did begin on Easter Morning. Please note that resurrection is not someone coming back from the dead, but coming through death and out the other side.

They seem more like stories designed to impress pre-literate peasants than anyone possessed to some degree of a modern education.

The hubris of assuming that lack of a modern education means those with an ancient education would believe anything - or even that they knew less about everything because they knew less about some things - is common but I find quite remarkable. They actually tended to know quite a lot about things like death - because they lived with it all the time in a way that we don't.

In particular 1st century greeks knew as well as any 21st century person that resurrection was impossible. They had stories to explain why. 1st century Jews knew that resurrection was something that would happen to all God's people at the end of the age, and for it to happen to one person in the present was impossible. For either group resurrection was as inconvievable as it was for anyone in the 21st century.

Take away the resurrection and you take away most of the NT. Take away the miracles and you take away most of the rest of the gospels and what you have left is meaningless.

On the other hand, in the light of the resurrection the other miracles not only become plausible but it becomes clear what they are - God's healing, restoring, redeeming, forgiving, future kingdom breaking forth around Jesus.

You think we sometimes choose to believe or not believe because we do or do not want something to be true. Well, I'm sure you would agree that whether or not we are right, and the subject belief really is/is not true, the method by which we have arrived at such a conclusion is unreliable, and more likely to lead to fallacy than accuracy

.
Most of the time the way we arrive at a belief is fragile at best - often downright dodgy. Over the course of time it then gets challenged by various stories and experience and either stand up against that and gets reinforced, or doesn't and gets weakened and eventually collapses.

The days of hanging on to a naieve positivism where all one's ideas are testable and tested by some safe, objective, reliable method are long gone.

The reason I'm 'stuck', as regards the creeds, is that they are fantastic, (in the true sense of the word, more like a fantasy than reality as we know it), and that it seems to me dishonest to attempt to believe their clauses just because it would be nice if they were true.

Um, that's kind of the point, isn't it. If they fitted what post-enlightenment thinking regarded as plausible they wouldn't be about God. On the other hand, the enlightenment's assumptions are no more 'proven' than the Judeo/Christian ones. But that said, I wouldn't start with the creeds from where you are, but from the resurrection. The rest can follow, or not, from that.

At what point do we decide, as careful thinkers and responsible adults, that some Christian beliefs are 'medieval fantasies' and others, no less outrageous to common sense, are Gospel truth?

Well the difference between medieval and New Testament is an 'objective' historical one - when did the ideas first appear and where were they written. There can only be less reason for believing a medieval corruption of New Testament thinking than for believing the original.

How medieval ideas of heaven and hell developed is historically traceable. On the other hand the resurrection as an invented idea is problematic - it involves huge changes of thinking, radically reshaping the whole patterns of thought of those who adopted it, in a remarkable space of time. "Myths" develop in gradual ways, traceable (at least in principle) from previous ideas. Yet the resurrection radically subverts all the prexisting ideas on the subject, goes from a peripheral subject in Judaism to the central item on which everything else is built in Christianity, and that is all done and throughly established within 20 years of the actual event.

You acknowledge that Jesus existed and taught at least some of what the NT records. I presume you also acknowledge his crucifixion - most scholars (Christian or otherwise) do. We know what would then happen to his followers: a crucifixion is the ultimate proof that someone is not the messiah - that's kind of the point of crucifying them. The messiah is not supposed to die. What then happens (we know this from the various other would be messiahs who were crucified) is that either they all give up and go home, or they transfer the messiahship to a relative - in Jesus case they had a perfect candidate (James). Yet there is not even a hint of anyone even thinking about that. Saying "Oh, he's dead, but he really was the messiah" was not an option. Saying "oh, he's dead, but he's come back to life" was also not an option - the resurrection could only happen, as I said, at the "end of the age". The only reason they could have possible continued to follow him was if something quite extraordinary happened on easter morning such as the gospel stories try to describe. And, FWIW, a vision, or ghost, or strange feeling of his presence, would not have cut it - all those ideas were well understood and they had language to talk about them. The language they do use for the resurrection is not compatible with that kind of spiritual idea, but is highly physical.

Perhaps the answers are in the books you mention. I shall see if I can get them from the library. Meanwhile, thanks for the recommendations

No worries.

BTW, why are do you sport a Christian icon if you don't believe any of it?

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well Ebia, you have certainly given me food for thought. It will take some time to digest.

Meanwhile, I thought I'd tackle your last question.

BTW, why are do you sport a Christian icon if you don't believe any of it?

Thing is, Jesus' two commandments, 'Love God!', and 'Love each other!' are pretty much all I need. They are both a constant challenge and a constant consolation. In many respects, all the other stuff seems superfluous. It's interesting to think about, debate over, investigate, analyse, question and contest. But it seems to me that these injunctions are the central core of Jesus' message, and that those who are obedient to this core know Him and are known by Him. Whatever their religion, denomination, sect or cult.

There didn't seem to be an icon representing this attitude, so I chose the one that seemed to me the closest, a general, uncommitted christianity with a small 'c'. Maybe I don't deserve it though, and I'd welcome your advice as to what category I do fit into, if I must be categorised.

Best wishes, and thanks, 2ndRateMind.

 

[Emmy]

Dear 2ndRateMind. You are not the only one, confounded by belief, and I realise more and more that we are all different. Perhaps equal in some things, but very different in others. I did not grow up with Religion, but was told as a child that God could see all naughty behaviour. In school I heard about Jesus, and loved Him truly. I grew up, married, had children, and my time was never my own to think deeply about anything. I was about 40, when the children had left to start their own lives, and I suddenly realised how very empty my life had become. Why are we here? what is it all about? some short-lived pleasures, and the same routine day in and day out. I was looking for meaning, and was lucky to know a truly devout Christian family. They invited me to church and there I met Jesus again. Yet I could not believe that HE, my dear school-friend, was God. It took many months of serious prayers, of myself and some good Christian brothers and sisters, plus reading the Gospels quite thouroughly, to accept that fact: Jesus found me, He loves me, and He changed my life completely. I now believe, 2ndRateMind, Jesus has given me His Love, Joy and Peace, and I accept Him as God-Son, my Saviour and my Friend. In time I joined the Salvation Army, became a soldier for Christ, and have met many changed men and women, who will testify their believes in a Leader who will lead us to victories over much evil. I believe because I have seen the truth of its strenght and endurance. God loves us, God wants us back again, and our original home has always been with God. God will never force, or coerce you in any way, He will always love you and gently guide you. I say this humbly and with love, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ. P.S. Believe comes in different guises, your heart will know When.

 

[aiki]

2ndratemind:

First off, my apologies for making what seemed to be an ad hominem attack upon you. The verse I quoted was intended as a generalization upon the whole subject of why people object especially to the idea of the Judeo-Christian God. My experience time and again has been that after all the questions have been answered and evidence provided for belief there is still the matter of admitting one has been wrong not just intellectually, but morally. Coming into relationship with a perfectly holy God necessarily involves our admission of our moral corruptness, which is why many people can be satisfied philosophically and otherwise about the God of the Bible and still, when faced with the fact of their sin, finally reject Him.

You seem to think that people can believe things that they know don't reflect reality. I honestly don't see how this is possible. There is reality. There is the mental model of reality we build for ourselves - our belief system - to represent reality and the way it works. An accurate mental model helps us make accurate predictions about that reality, and so helps us make decisions. The point is, we can't, it seems to me, deliberately build for ourselves an inaccurate mental model. If we think some proposition false, we reject it. If we think something true, it is incorporated to our pre-existing belief set. If we think something true, and it is dissonant with the mental model to date, we make the necessary adjustments, either to the new proposition or to our mental model of reality. But the whole exercise is aimed at faithfully representing reality to ourselves.

I think many people are quite lazy and careless about what they believe. Choosing a system of beliefs seems, for many, often to be an accidental and largely unconscious process. Often I've spoken with people who have embraced an idea or value that they've adopted from t.v., or their peers, or some such source without having given it any particular scrutiny. Many times it only takes the slightest probing to expose how weak a person's grasp is of their own beliefs and how in error are those beliefs. There has only to be the appearance of reality, the feel of what is true to persuade such folk to believe. Its not so much that they've chosen to believe something they know is untrue, but that they've chosen to believe something they haven't made sure is true.

For example, I was talking only a day ago with a young man who held that truth was completely subjective and that all such subjective "truth" was equal in value. He believed such an idea corresponded to reality - that it was true. A few simple questions, a few examples from reality, quickly gave him cause for sober second thought. He rapidly realized that truth by its very nature was exclusivistic and that not all subjective "truths" could be equal.

In any case, my point is that his belief did not accurately reflect reality and that he had not made a careful attempt to make sure that it did. I have met many others like him.

If you doubt this, try a small thought experiment. Try becoming a believing Moslem for the next five minutes, and then reverting to your prior beliefs. If we are responsible for our beliefs, and if they are a matter of volition, you should be able to manage this without too much difficulty. But if you can't, and I suspect you won't be able to, then I think that that demonstrates our beliefs are not amenable to deliberate, conscious control, and independent of our direct desire.

Why would I be unable to truly embrace the Moslem faith even for just five minutes? Why can I not simply abandon my Christian worldview? Because I didn't simply adopt it. It was a process that brought me to faith in Christ, not a sudden, arbitrary shift in view. I was persuaded by the evidence to believe the gospel and to become a Christian. Being unable to set aside this process and instantly and fully adopt a new set of beliefs doesn't prove that I cannot choose new beliefs, but only that I will not do so imprudently and without good cause.

Peace.

 

[ebia]

Well Ebia, you have certainly given me food for thought. It will take some time to digest.

Meanwhile, I thought I'd tackle your last question.



Thing is, Jesus' two commandments, 'Love God!', and 'Love each other!' are pretty much all I need. They are both a constant challenge and a constant consolation. In many respects, all the other stuff seems superfluous. It's interesting to think about, debate over, investigate, analyse, question and contest. But it seems to me that these injunctions are the central core of Jesus' message, and that those who are obedient to this core know Him and are known by Him. Whatever their religion, denomination, sect or cult.

There didn't seem to be an icon representing this attitude, so I chose the one that seemed to me the closest, a general, uncommitted christianity with a small 'c'. Maybe I don't deserve it though, and I'd welcome your advice as to what category I do fit into, if I must be categorised.

Best wishes, and thanks, 2ndRateMind.

Fair enough - I'm not in the business of telling people what label they should use about themselves, I was just curious.

Thanks & God bless,

ebia

 

[Merlin]

Christianity is not about belief.
Even the 'devil' believes.
It's about choice.

Choose who you will serve
Trust in the Lord.

Let Him worry about the details.
Let Him change you.

 

[XChristian]

How many faiths do you have to choose from 2ndratemind? Christianity and Athiesm are not the only belief systems out there? How many Christian's can claim to have sat down and studied multiple faiths besides Christianity BEFORE deciding that Christianity was the truth and the right faith and rejected all others? I am sure some have but the majority of them are just following the crowd. I realize this is a Christian Forum but I do not think we should ignore other faiths, especially if you have doubts and are looking for answers. If you had a serious illness and the first doctor you saw said there was no hope would you stop there or seek out other doctors and specialists that might know something the first doctor didn't. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I personally would say yes, we can chose what to believe.
Beliefs often don't happen by accident - they involve methodical thinking. For example, conversions to other religions (which have different beliefs) are intentional.

There are also ideas which can't be proved by facts. It's far more difficult to prove "I am a good person" than it is to prove 2x2=4.
To use another example - if someone believes themself to be a good person, they will have higher self-esteem, even if nothing has actually changed. He may look the same, have the same job, be the same age etc. but his outlook on life will be different to someone who has low self-esteem.

Bu-u-ut that's just what I believe.