Christianity to me means trying to follow in Christ’s footsteps. I believe we exist to love and be loved. Judgement is reserved for God, I’m here to give what I can.
The story of Jesus isn’t super unique from a mythological perspective, but it’s the one that was taught to me first as I was growing up so it’s a foundational part of who I am. As a kid I didn’t like Christianity because it seemed like there were too many contradictions in the teachings and the behavior of the believers.
As I got older and gained more experiences I started to realize why those contradictions exist, and I approached the source material from a more nuanced perspective instead of dogma.
Learning about other religions and mythologies really solidified my faith in “God” as something truly transcendental that can never be captured or understood from a logical perspective. I think Christianity is flawed in that it is the human interpretation of “divine” experiences, but everything is “flawed” when. I believe we can always find a path back to grace.
I am not sure how to say “what Christianity means to me,” because Christianity is at the root of how I understand meaning. It is the tradition—comprising stories, ideas, words, practices, and institutions—in which I live and make sense of my life and the world. I can see that there are other traditions, which by which other people make sense of their lives and the world, but this one is mine.
Likewise, “why I believe in it” is sort of a strange question, which I cannot really answer without first addressing the problem that “believe” is a word with many complex uses. In this context, I suspect you mean “believe in it” in the sense of “expressly affirm the truth of certain propositions of fact,” or something like that. But that is not a meaning that makes sense to me in this context. As I mentioned above, Christianity is something much thicker than just a set of propositions. How could one “believe in” a practice for example? One might have certain beliefs about a practice, but those are not necessarily the reasons why one participates in it. Likewise, a story can be deeply meaningful without being “believed” in that sense. (I like to point to all the people who find the Star Wars universe deeply meaningful, for example, as manifested in the way it shapes their lives. But they know it is imaginary.)
But there is an older sense of “belief,” which we often use in other contexts, which is to have confidence in, or even—in perhaps a very old sense—to love. For example, we say to a loved one who is about to face a challenge, “I believe in you.” In that sense of “believe,” I have confidence in Christianity for the same reason that I am able to answer the first question as I did: because it grounds my sense of meaning for both my life and the world.
Follow-up questions:
What sect of Christianity do you follow? How long has your chosen sect been around? What book and book version does your sect follow? How do you know that your sect is the “right” one? How do you know that your overall religion is the “right” one? What does your religion/sect say happens to anyone who is not a part of it?
As with the original question, almost every one of these follow-up questions is really just a restatement of assumptions.
“What sect of Christianity do you follow?”
None? I am not even sure how to answer the question. I am a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ, which is the local setting where I participate in the life of the church universal, which extends far beyond my local setting. But I would never say that I “follow” the UCC. To the extent being a Christian is to “follow,” it is to follow Jesus, not some “sect.”
“How long has your chosen sect been around?”
The phrasing of this question is bizarre. “Chosen sect”? My experience of the UCC is more that it found and chose me than the reverse. And I would say the same for the Christian tradition as a whole. I have never sat down to look at some menu of “religions” or “sects” and “chosen” one. That does not even make sense as an exercise to me. If you think you are “choosing” such a thing, then you are so profoundly missing the point that I am not even sure how to help you navigate to a different perspective. One’s faith tradition is not like some element of a character design that one just selects from among options.
As for my local congregation, which is part of the UCC, it is complicated. The congregation has been around for almost 150 years, but the UCC—a unification of several denominations—has only been around for about half that time. And, in any case, our practice incorporates elements from throughout the history of the church universal, extending all the way to the celebration of communion, which is traditionally understood to have been instituted by Jesus (though historically that seems unlikely).
“What book and book version does your sect follow?”
Again, this is a weird question, which assumes that to be a “sect,” one must “follow” a “book.” But that is not really how a tradition works. Certainly, we read scripture in my congregation, and our worship is steeped in scripture. I participate in several Bible study groups. But it would be incorrect to say that we “follow” the Bible, because that is not what the Bible is. The Bible (and more in a moment on what that means) is a collection of texts, written by many different people, in different times and places, for different reasons, gathered together by still other people, in still other times and places, for still other reasons, and read and maintained by yet further groups. To the extent the Bible remains a vital part of Christian life, it is because people continue to engage it through participatory actions, rather than because they “follow” it.
In my congregation, and in all the parts of the church that I regularly interact with, there is no singular, standard version. Indeed, there are multiple canon lists that mean that different people mean different things by “the Bible.” I personally study widely, and look at many different versions of both canonical and non-canonical materials. The UCC generally, and the congregation where I participate, imposes no limitations in this respect.
“How do you know that your sect is the ‘right’ one?”
Why do you assume that a “sect” must be “the ‘right’ one”? And “right” for whom? I participate in the UCC, and in my local congregation, even as I critique them. I would not say they are “right” in any sense, except to say that they are my home within the church. But that does not mean they are above or beyond reproach. Indeed, my tradition, going all the way back to the scriptures that we read, includes a strong strand of continual self-critique—it is what the “prophets” are in the Bible.
And I would never presume to say that someone else’s tradition is “wrong.” I certainly might disagree with them, or critique them. But that does not mean that their entire tradition is somehow “wrong.” They have as much right and legitimacy to their home as I do to mine.
“How do you know that your overall religion is the ‘right’ one?”
Same answer as to the previous question.
“What does your religion/sect say happens to anyone who is not a part of it?”
Nothing, because a “religion/sect” cannot speak. Only people can speak.
