So ... 'believing is seeing', is that it? or "Seek and ye shall find?" Seems to me an instance of the placebo-effect of confirmation bias.

No doubt, which is why I prefer the exemplary teachings of legendary "normal persons" other than Jesus of Nazareth like Socrates or Epicurus ... Btw, from what I recall (from reading the book in the 1980s), The Last Temptation of Christ is, IMHO, a great gnostic novel (i.e. 'existentialist' à la Hans Jonas / Gabriel Marcel).

It's unclear to me what you are attempting to say other that there are different ways of knowing and that you believe in god because of personal experience. I was talking to a Muslim on Wednesday who put his argument the same way you do, except for him Jesus was a mortal who died and only Allah provides the way to Paradise. How do you measure one person's personal feelings (revelation) against another's, when the revelation grounds utterly different worldviews?

I asked the question of how we are to understand Jesus — Fooloso4

and my answer was: However you can, according to your own lights
[

against the background of how he is understood within Christianity.

Variously. So variously that you might not even recognize the different strains of it as the same religion. Indeed, the dominant one very often declared one or another variant as heretical and persecuted those who believed it.

Put differently, what does Christian belief and practice look like to Christians who regard him as a moral man.

Ask a Christian. Ask many Christians. You'll probably get as many answers.

Right, but its success does not mean it was not a mistake. — Fooloso4

Who is to say which religion is "a mistake"? I'm sure there are plenty of opinions.

There is nothing particularly Christian about this. — Fooloso4

Of course there isn't! It's the kernel of all practical instruction for a coherent society.

What, if anything, distinguishes Christianity? — Fooloso4

The fact that it had Constantine as its patron, at a time when he was gaining power. (Paul was a pretty good salesman, but he couldn't have done it at the grass roots.)

Short answer, yes.

So ... 'believing is seeing', is that it? or "Seek and ye shall find?" Seems to me an instance of the placebo-effect of confirmation bias. — 180 Proof

More like the other way around. Like, "I can't believe what I am seeing" or "I wasn't seeking anything and it found me and knocked me on my ass."

Why interpret such an incredible ("I can't believe what I'm seeing") encounter as "God" or in some religious way?

I asked the question of how we are to understand Jesus
— Fooloso4
and my answer was: However you can, according to your own lights — Vera Mont

Is it your position that Christianity is whatever you want it to be as long as believers are decent to one another, regardless of what else is believed, said, and done?

Ask a Christian. Ask many Christians. You'll probably get as many answers. — Vera Mont

Right. And many if not most will deny that Christianity without a divine savior is Christianity. My point is not that one must be right and the other wrong but that without some common element or perhaps family resemblance there is no referent. Nothing that distinguishes it from other religions or beliefs and practices.

Who is to say which religion is "a mistake"? — Vera Mont

If Jesus was just a man then it would be a mistake to worship him as a god. If he is a god then it would be a mistake to regard him as merely a man. Of course we are free to decide for ourselves but that does not solve the problem for someone struggling to decide.

Of course there isn't! It's the kernel of all practical instruction for a coherent society. — Vera Mont

Then secular rather than religious?

What, if anything, distinguishes Christianity?
— Fooloso4
The fact that it had Constantine as its patron, at a time when he was gaining power. — Vera Mont

Constantine took sides in the dispute that the Council of Nicaea was supposed to resolve, but political fiat does not resolve theological differences. Consistent with what you said above I would think you would say that it is up to the individual. In which case it would would seem that there is nothing that distinguishes it.

(Paul was a pretty good salesman, but he couldn't have done it at the grass roots.) — Vera Mont

Christianity was at its inception the religion invented by Paul and, according to Paul, at odds with what Jesus' disciples said Jesus preached. This was also the inception of the growing hatred of Jews by those who called themselves Christian.

It's unclear to me what you are attempting to say other that there are different ways of knowing and that you believe in god because of personal experience. I was talking to a Muslim on Wednesday who put his argument the same way you do, except for him Jesus was a mortal who died and only Allah provides the way to Paradise. How do you measure one person's personal feelings (revelation) against another's, when the revelation grounds utterly different worldviews? — Tom Storm

I responded to the question of what religion by just talking about my belief in God, so I wasn't really being sensitive to the differences between different religions. Since here, it seemed like there was a threshold question about whether God or any religion even makes sense, I basically tackled that.

But I find the same God shows up in all kinds of religions and peoples. If everyone in the world was a Catholic, each person would still have something unique and particular in their view of God. It's like knowing a person. My view of my wife is unlike anyone else's view of my wife. In a sense, anyone who has a belief in God has their own religion.

Short answer, yes. — Fire Ologist

That very interesting because it seems to imply that your revelation was of a nature consistent with the Catholic faith, as opposed to, say, an Eastern faith which is quite different.

The OP asks what religion and why.

revelation was of a nature consistent with the Catholic faith, as opposed to, say, an Eastern faith which is quite different. — praxis

Yes, I try to be a Catholic. When Moses asked for God's name, God just said "I am". Sounds very Eastern. When Jesus was born, the story goes, he was visited by three wise men from the East. I find God has been revealing himself everywhere. I just think, personally, it's most explicit in the Catholic faith.

Why interpret such an incredible ("I can't believe what I'm seeing") encounter as "God" or in some religious way? — 180 Proof

Yeah. There is a leap of faith involved. I do doubt it all at times. Not lately. But when I do, I think God still wants me (and all of us) so he keeps pulling me back in. It's not just up to me. That is what I found has been revealed.

But you won't find me using wishful thinking or not confronting my biases here though. The words in this forum have to stand alone. A quote from Plato, or Kant or Nietzsche should not be taken as any kind of gospel, so neither would a quote from the Bible or revelation. And anyway, even two Catholics talking about Christ's death on the cross are often having two totally different conversations.

I'll throw out one personal take on it all to show you how tough it would be for me to tell you why I believe in God, or why I believe something revealed is a revelation from God: it is precisely because the story of God told in the bible makes no sense that I believe it has to be true. Kind of like, seeing the unbelievable is believing. I know that does my argument no good (but it's not an argument), but hopefully still means something.

he was visited by three wise men from the East — Fire Ologist

On that, they might have been Zoroastrian. The translation to English "three wise men" does not tell the whole story.
Edit: the archived version presents an extremely poor text compared to what I remember, but I hope the idea is still understandable.

Is it your position that Christianity is whatever you want it to be as long as believers are decent to one another, regardless of what else is believed, said, and done? — Fooloso4

No. I have no 'position' on the matter. I describe things as i see them. If my perception is incorrect, then my answer is wrong.

If Jesus was just a man then it would be a mistake to worship him as a god. If he is a god then it would be a mistake to regard him as merely a man. — Fooloso4

That's your position, is it? Fine.

Then secular rather than religious? — Fooloso4

Any society.

In which case it would would seem that there is nothing that distinguishes it. — Fooloso4

Fine.
Are you aware that this horse died about 1600 years ago?

they might have been Zoroastrian — Lionino

In the end, after all the true history would be sorted out, to me, they would still represent the whole rest of the world, that he was there in a horse trough for all of us and all of us were there represented with our finest for him. Besides the history of it all, the story get's a lot of mileage with the kids too. Cute baby sheep, silver and gold.

What do you mean by religion?

There is a leap of faith involved [ ... ] why I believe something revealed is a revelation from God: it is precisely because the story of God told in the bible makes no sense that I believe it has to be true.  — Fire Ologist

:ok:

I was raised evangelical Christian, perhaps borderline fundamentalist. I broke out of that prison a mere 8 or 10 years ago only to find myself in a different prison, one of belief paralysis, existential crisis, and extreme doubt about absolutely everything. To an outsider all of that fallout may look like a result of my religious indoctrination, which is probably true, but I'm still not a believer in losing one's faith as being a universally enlightening or triumphant experience. Loss of faith has been one long, agonizing divorce for me.

All of that said, I'm not an atheist. But I no longer worry about any ongoing debate about God's existence; I'm now bored by them. Provisionally, my conception of God is probably closest to a Hindu conception, for anyone who cares. I feel no need to defend this belief; I don't care what other people think of it. And I think that's healthier than feeling the need to defend one's belief or lack thereof in God; I'm speaking from experience here.

I'm still not a believer in losing one's faith as being a universally enlightening or triumphant experience. Loss of faith has been one long, agonizing divorce for me. — Noble Dust

I've witnessed this sort of "divorce" afflicting several friends and acquaintances throughout my life and always have felt fortunate that I didn't go through such "agony" because I'd realized while still at my Jesuit high school that, despite a decade or more by then of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing and education, I had had no "faith" to lose, recognizing that I didn't believe the biblical stories were any truer than the superhero comics (& Greco-Roman, Egyptian-African myths) I'd geeked-out on or that Catholic symbols & practices were anything but tribal customs like wearing team jerseys and flag waving. I can't say forty-five years later that the experience of 'coming out as a nonbeliever' (I wasn't aware of the word atheist or freethinker yet) was anything like "enlightening or triumphant" since it greatly displeased my mother, irritated both of my favorite teachers who were priests and confused my younger brother and our closest friends.

Fortunately, all I had to do was shut-up about my apostasy and go through the obligatory motions like before and no one mentioned it again until after I'd graduated high school a couple of years later. "Loss of God", however, was more of an intellectual than existential difficulty for me only after I'd been seriously reading philosophy for almost a decade because the "loss" had deprived my thinking of any "foundation" or "absolute" or "teleology", etc ... which, ironically, had gradually become illuminating.

NB: My irreligious 'road to Damascus':
i. apostasy —> ii. agnostic/negative atheism —> iii. positive atheism —> antitheism —> pandeism ...

That's your position, is it? Fine. — Vera Mont

It is the position that is under discussion. The question was raised, and not by me, whether Jesus was a real person. I joined in to say:

My guess is that he did exist but that we know nothing about this man. It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah. — Fooloso4

This was followed by your post:

I think Jesus was a composite figure ... — Vera Mont

So, we agree on that.

But it does not have to be my position in order to discuss it and what follows from that.

If Jesus was just a man then ... — Fooloso4

Christianity without a Christ seems to be oxymoronic.

Are you aware that this horse died about 1600 years ago? — Vera Mont

?

Do you mean the Council of Ephesus (431)? Or the First Council (325)? Or the Gregorian calendar (425)? Or something else?

In any case, when it comes to theological matters, whatever some group of men come to agreement on is not the end of the matter. Here we are all those years later still discussing it.

Christianity without a Christ seems to be oxymoronic. — Fooloso4

Yes, I get that. So? It does not alter the history or present state of Christianity. It doesn't make the least little difference to what people have done, what people do and what people believe.

Here we are all those years later still discussing it. — Fooloso4

We were. Now, only you are.

It doesn't make the least little difference to what people have done, what people do and what people believe. — Vera Mont

Of course it does! Perhaps not to you but it makes a great deal of difference to some who question whether they can remain Christian and not believe that Jesus was more than human. I have been here long enough to think it likely that some of them might even be reading this. There is more to it than either giving them an answer or telling them it is up to them to make up their own mind. Some might be looking for help in sorting it all out for themselves. For them it may be that the question of this thread: "What religion are you and why?" is something they struggle with. For some it is the questioning, the inquiring, and not the answers anyone else gives that is most important.

Here we are all those years later still discussing it.
— Fooloso4
We were. Now, only you are. — Vera Mont

'We' is not limited to you and me. But now 'we' includes one less participant. At least for now.

Perhaps not to you but it makes a great deal of difference to some who question whether they can remain Christian and not believe that Jesus was more than human. — Fooloso4

They will simply have to do whatever people who questioned have always had to do: decide what they believe.
Christianity got itself established quite firmly in the world without benefit of the pedigree you seem to require. It's done and has not come undone by force of arguments, debates, investigations, archeological digs, commentaries, apologetics or encyclicals. It will not come undone by some minor quibble over who is what religion and why in a tiny backwater of the internet. Whoever else wants to further discuss it will get exactly same forrurder.

They will simply have to do whatever people who questioned have always had to do: decide what they believe. — Vera Mont

Of course. But they need not be alone in doing so. They might find discussion and the articulation of questions helpful.

Christianity got itself established quite firmly in the world without benefit of the pedigree you seem to require. — Vera Mont

What pedigree? There is no pedigree. From the beginning there have been factions and differences with regard to both belief and practice.

Christianity has a history, much of which has been suppressed, lost, or forgotten. It did not become firmly established without two things:

1) The Church Fathers successful unification of what they misleadingly called the Catholic Church
by declaring certain texts and doctrines to be canonical and official and others heretical. The heretical texts include inspirational writing, testifying to the indwelling of spirit. Some regard this as the true genius of Christianity.

2) Prior to the establishment of the Church there were for the most part a small group of Jewish followers of Jesus who believed he was the promised messiah, and the Gentile followers of Paul, who in effect abolished what Jesus claimed to fulfill , God's Law. At some point the Gentile Christians, in line with their belief in deification and contrary to both Jesus and Paul, made Jesus a god. Despite their agreement on this, there were differences as to what this meant. These disputes threatened not only the Church, which Constantine at this point seemed to have little interest in, but political alliances, which he was very much interested in. It is an open question whether Christianity would have survived without Constantine.

It will not come undone by some minor quibble over who is what religion and why in a tiny backwater of the internet. — Vera Mont

I agree that it will not come undone in this way. If you think that is what I intend you are wrong. In these discussions it is typical for someone to accuse me of either supporting or trying to undermine Christianity or religion. As if by raising questions and difficulties I must be doing one or the other. I have no interest in doing either.

Given its diversity, any focused discussion of Christianity or more generally religion needs to deal with some degree of specificity regarding beliefs and/or practices. It is not for the sake of a pedigree but so that we are talking about the same thing.

Added: By way of example. On several occasions people have told me that they "love philosophy", but then go on to talk about things that I would not regard as philosophy. I do not engage in a discussion of what I think is or is not philosophy, but I do come to see that we are not talking about the same thing.

Given its diversity, any focused discussion of Christianity or more generally religion needs to deal with some degree of specificity regarding beliefs and/or practices. — Fooloso4

That sounds like a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure there are appropriate platforms for it.

I'm sure there are appropriate platforms for it. — Vera Mont

This platform will do just fine. I did not start this topic. Others crop up all the time. If you have an issue with it take it up with the moderators. It was your choice to participate and to respond to me.

The question of the order of authority between reason and revelation is a perennial philosophical problem. Plato referred to it as 'the quarrel between philosophy and poetry'. Tertullian might have been the first to use the phrase 'Athens and Jerusalem'. In any case it remains an issue for both philosophers and theologians.

You said that you are:

Anti-religious only when provoked. — Vera Mont

Unless I have read you wrong, it looks to me that you feel that you have been provoked. Why?

Plato referred to it as 'the quarrel between philosophy and poetry'. — Fooloso4

Nice - can you expand a little?

The term poet comes from the Greek poiein which means to make. The poets were the makers of myths, of stories, of images of men and gods. They were not simply entertainers, they were the primary educators. First among them was Homer. In the Republic the poets are the makers of the images of those things whose shadows are cast on the cave wall. The shadows or images of images the prisoners, that is, people, take to be the truth.

Socrates wants to banish the poets from the just city. The philosophers and not the poets should be the educators, the myth makers, the makers of truth, and of proper conduct toward men and gods.

First among them was Homer — Fooloso4

Homer was one in a long lineage of rhapsodes.

Unless I have read you wrong, it looks to me that you feel that you have been provoked. — Fooloso4

Your perception is incorrect in this instance. I do not feel provoked. The kind of provocation it takes to turn me against religion is far greater in scope and effect: it is in the realm of political influence.
I do believe that the historicity and mortality of Jesus, and how it affects modern Christians theology - is not well situated in the Lounge, and that, insofar as it relates to the OP question, has been exhausted.

First as in preeminent not chronologically.