[763] First-time writer exploring Sartre, Christianity, and interpretation — would love critical feedback

Hi everyone,

This is my first attempt at writing something in the philosophical domain. I write a lot in general, but this is my first real try at exploring philosophy in essay form.

I’ve never formally studied philosophy, and you can probably tell I’m a newbie — but I’ve been reading a mix of thinkers I find compelling: mostly Nietzsche, Camus, Hume, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard. I tend to bounce between existentialism, moral psychology, and theology, with no academic roadmap.

This essay, “The Act of Belief: Why Christianity Is Exactly What It Appears to Be,” is a personal and philosophical reflection on growing up Catholic, becoming disillusioned, and applying existentialist ideas (mainly Sartre’s “existence precedes essence”) to the way Christianity is lived and politicized today.

In particular, I argue that people often criticize Christians for “not following the Bible,” but that this critique misunderstands how religious meaning is shaped. I suggest there’s no “true Christianity” — only the one lived through interpretation, context, and emotion, whether we like it or not. Even if we think it’s wrong or contradictory, it still defines what Christianity is in practice today.

I’d really appreciate any feedback on:

• Argument structure and clarity
• Philosophical soundness or blind spots
• Tone — does it read as too confident, too casual, too academic?
• Anything that feels off, unclear, or redundant

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read or respond — I’m here to learn.

https://medium.com/@thewormswaking/the-act-of-belief-why-christianity-is-exactly-what-it-appears-to-be-48da35218e9a