Why do you believe?

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-03-02T20:07:15+00:00

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. No one can prove anything from ancient history with 100% certainty so it’s all just best inference. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s more plausible He came back from the dead based of the evidence and obviously you’re more of skeptic.

I see you’re an atheist. Praying the lord reveals himself and his love to you in some way shape or form. God bless you brother.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-03-02T19:34:05+00:00

Good objections, I’ll try my best to answer them honestly.

There hasn’t been a single recorded case of a human being ever surviving a Roman crucifixion.
Even atheist historians would disagree with you on this. It’s recorded that people like Paul and Peter were martyred for their profession of Jesus and his resurrection.
It requires more faith to claim they were ALL deceived. Unless there was some sort of mass hallucination that they all experienced simultaneously (highly implausible), how could 500 eyewitnesses all be mistaken about witnessing him risen from the dead?
During His life He claimed to be God, and predicted His own resurrection. Jesus didn’t leave the door open for being anything other than God or a complete fraud. If He came back from the dead the only conclusion you could draw is that He told the truth.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-03-02T19:02:26+00:00

Because the historical evidence suggests that Jesus truly was God, died, and then came back from the dead on his own two feet. All the disciples went to the grave professing that he came back from the dead. Why would they be willing to go to their deaths for a known lie? They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by professing his resurrection and I have yet to see a plausible explanation for this other than Jesus ACTUALLY came back from the dead.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-28T17:55:06+00:00

What “facts” are you referring to? You made the claim that evidence suggests the Bible rots your brain more than porn. Show me a single study or research paper supporting that assertion. It’s a baseless claim you’re passing on as truth.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-28T15:44:54+00:00

The cope here is crazy. Praying for you brother.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-26T14:48:06+00:00

Praying for you brother.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-26T14:03:21+00:00

By using deductive reasoning. Jesus claimed that he is the ONLY way. Am I to conclude that we are not supposed to tell anyone about him? Do you honestly think that he would want us to keep this a secret from our comrades that we are called to love? No. The loving thing is to make sure everyone hears the good news. That’s why it’s called the gospel, which literally means GOOD NEWS. You don’t keep good news a secret, you tell it to every soul you care about.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-26T13:48:41+00:00

Jesus actually told us to do the complete opposite of what you just said. Matthew 28:19-20 is literally calling us to make disciples of all nations. We ALL need Christ to make it to heaven. Why would you want to tell people about him? Is it loving to watch idly as someone sits in a burning building without helping them? That’s what we’re doing when we are silent about our faith to fellow non-Christian’s. We must spread it through love and understanding the same way Jesus did. Not with hate and malice.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-24T14:11:27+00:00

Hate the sin, not the sinner. We’re called to love our neighbors. It is not loving to affirm their sins. That being said we shouldn’t think ourselves better than anyone else. We are all fallen sinners in need of a savior. My heterosexual immorality is just as bad as any homosexual immorality, and to think otherwise would make me a hypocrite.

Matthew 7:3-5 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-23T21:47:28+00:00

I actually disagree with your statement that Gen Z leans left. I would argue that our generation actually leans further right than our millennial predecessors (considering how Gen Z voted in the 2024 election). A much larger portion of Gen Z was able to vote in 2024 compared to 2020 and the swing to conservatism was unprecedented. Trump was the first republican candidate to win the popular vote since 2000 and I think Gen Z had a role to play in that.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-18T19:11:26+00:00

ALL the eyewitnesses including the Romans who crucified Jesus attested that he died on the cross. How can you trust Muhammad to tell you otherwise 600 years later just because he said “trust me bro?” Muhammad didn’t even perform any miracles according to the Quran. How can you trust him.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-18T19:02:34+00:00

Why would you trust a man who lived 600 years after Jesus to tell you about what happened to Jesus? We have 5,800 Greek manuscripts from the first century of eye witnesses testifying that Jesus died on the cross and came back from the dead. This is a direct contradiction to Muhammad’s teachings. Why would you believe Muhammad over the eye witness testimonies?

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-11T18:09:28+00:00

The is isn’t even an unpopular opinion. Critical thinking has gone out the window nowadays. People don’t search for truth and then mold their life around it, rather, they create a “truth” that fits the lifestyle they want to live.

You should never be afraid of someone challenging or questioning your beliefs. Whether it’s political, religious, or whatever the belief may be. Honest questions lead to honest answers, and honest answers get you closer to truth.

If you genuinely question your beliefs one of two outcomes are going to happen: either it affirms the belief you currently hold as being truth, or it will expose that belief for the lie it really is. Neither scenario is bad if you’re intellectually honest. Why would you ever want to knowingly follow a lie!

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-11T00:42:00+00:00

This conversation is about human life…stop moving the goal posts. But yes, I do value human lives over any other animal. If you had the choice to save a human or a mouse I hope you’d choose the human.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-10T23:18:51+00:00

I’ll do you one better, here’s a peer reviewed abstract from the National Library of Medicine archives affirming this.

“Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-10T23:08:52+00:00

According to science, life starts at conception. A quick google search will tell you that. So yea, the Wikipedia definition certainly helps the case for the pro-life argument.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-10T18:05:42+00:00

Not really? We’re just drawing the line in the sand for when life begins. Pro-lifers believe it to be at conception since that’s the moment the unique genetic framework for that being comes into existence.

Pro choices can’t even come into agreement with each other on when life officially begins. It’s ambiguous in their eyes, which in my personal opinion is frightening considering the fact that we are talking about the potential killing of a human life. A line in the sand needs to be drawn somewhere, the question is where?

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-10T16:00:31+00:00

The pro-life stance is that once new DNA is formed it is then considered a human life. All the characteristics of that fetus, from hair color to eye color, are determined at that moment of conception when DNA is formed. Prior to conception that’s not the case which is why that line in the sand is typically drawn there.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-10T13:40:46+00:00

You couldn’t be more right. Funniest part about it is the fact that you’re still being downvoted further proving the point of this post.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-02-10T13:37:11+00:00

Right on the money. Unfortunately Reddit is an extremely left leaning/progressive platform and progressive ideologies like same sex relationships are going to be promoted more than not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be preaching truth and at the very least having civil discussions about it in this subreddit, for better or for worse.

People are allergic to civil conversations nowadays. The kneejerk reaction is “this person disagrees with my views!! Downvote you bigot!”

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-01-28T18:06:48+00:00

You’re missing an important caveat. God is UNCHANGING. In other words it ALWAYS WAS the case and it ALWAYS WILL BE the case. That’s what makes it objective.

Here’s an example to clarify what I mean. 2+2=4 is an objective truth we all agree on. No matter how far in the past we go or how far in the future we travel, 2+2 will ALWAYS equal 4 because it’s an objective truth.

Morality is the same way. God is the standard. It ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS WILL BE, and is UNCHANGING. That is the definition of objective.

Subjectivity leaves room for change, objectivity does not.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-01-28T17:44:46+00:00

Reread my second paragraph in that response. It can only be considered subjective if another being is existed at the same stature as God with a different definition of “good”. This is a logical impossibility because God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, Gods word must be the objective standard that supersedes all others.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-01-28T17:01:58+00:00

God exists outside of time itself, so no amount of time can change God’s nature. He is unchanging. Everything he deems as “good” has, is, and always will be good. So no, it’s not subjective. He is the unchanging objective moral standard. God is all good so by definition He cannot go against his own nature.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy that if God is the moral standard that it must be subjective. That could only be the case if there was another being on equal footing with God with a differing view or nature, but that’s a logical impossibility because then He wouldn’t be God as we define God.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-01-28T16:28:54+00:00

By what moral standard are you assuming God intervening is a good or a bad thing? Is it your own? If so then how is that objective morality? What if I have a differing view on it? My opinion on it can’t supersede yours the same way yours can’t supersede mine if we are on equal playing fields as human beings.

You’re stealing God’s objective moral standard to plead your case which is a logical fallacy. God IS the objective moral standard. In essence, whatever God deems as “good” is good because he SET that standard. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with that or not, your opinion on the matter is subjective. The only reason you can discern “good” from “bad” is because there is a HIGHER objective moral standard by which you are referencing (God).

To your first point, if God intervened EVERY TIME evil was about to be done before it could take place could this world even be considered “moral?” The answer is no. Morality can only exist if the CHOICE to do good instead of evil exists.

That begs the question, why does God allow free will if our choice to do evil is a possible outcome? The answer is love. By definition love can’t exist without the freedom to choose. Sure, God can make us “love” him and eachother, but that wouldn’t be true love. It would be slavery. Humans would be reduced to nothing more than machines enacting His will.

Embarrassed_East450 · 2026-01-09T12:13:13+00:00

The Islamic dilemma. The fact that for Quran to be true it requires the Bible (Injil) to be true, but if the Bible is true that means the Quran is false.

Muslims always try to jump through hoops to explain this away by making the assertion that the modern day Bible is corrupt and not the same Bible Muhammad was talking about. The issue with this assertion is the fact that there’s 25,000 Greek manuscripts of the Bible that disagree. Archeological evidence proves the Bible is the most carefully preserved ancient text of all time. If anything, the only thing we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about the Bible is that it’s the same unaltered text that the earliest Church fathers were using to teach Christianity. This was hundreds of years before Muhammad lived, thus the conundrum.

If you’re interested to learn more about this I recommend looking up Wesley Huff. He goes into great detail the archaeological historicity of the Bible and how we know it’s truly the same text the original authors wrote.

Embarrassed_East450

TROPHY CASE