Christians... why do you identify as Christian?

[TJ in Oregon]

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who was incarnate as a man, was crucified and died for our sake, and rose again from the dead. I believe that man was created good in the image and likeness of God, but God in his love gave us the free will to reject him, and that mankind, through our free will, is in a fallen state. I believe that God instituted a plan for our salvation, beginning with the revelation to Israel and culminating with Christ's sacrifice.

In a logistical sense, these are many of the core beliefs of Christianity. They are not necessarily at odds with more abstract conceptions, but are in my view the most straightforward answer to this question.

[TJ in Oregon]

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who was incarnate as a man, was crucified and died for our sake, and rose again from the dead. I believe that man was created good in the image and likeness of God, but God in his love gave us the free will to reject him, and that mankind, through our free will, is in a fallen state. I believe that God instituted a plan for our salvation, beginning with the revelation to Israel and culminating with Christ's sacrifice.

In a logistical sense, these are many of the core beliefs of Christianity. They are not necessarily at odds with more abstract conceptions, but are in my view the most straightforward answer to this question.

I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking WHY do you believe, WHY do you call yourself Christian. Why do you feel attracted to Christianity, above all other religions and philosophies and paths?

TJ's reply seems very logical to me. He identifies as a Christian because he believes that. That's why he feels attracted to Christianity.

Then how did he come to believe that? What solidified his faith?

I didn't mean to be a smart alec, but the original question asked me why I identify as Christian not why I believe Christianity is true. It seemed to be based on identity rather than a statement about truth. I was planning to try and write up a new effortpost about this, but since I already wrote one last year about practically the same question, I'll just quote it:

First, no one can ever be 100% sure anything is right. To give a rather silly example, it is entirely possible that no one else exists besides me. I can neither prove nor disprove that idea beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor can I prove or disprove any other metaphysical belief or lack thereof.

Beyond that, there are things that I still think are almost certainly true, the most obvious of which are those that are experimentally verifiable. This statement allows me to generally accept science: that there is a method by which we can make hypotheses that could conceivably be proven false, test them, and from the results decide whether the hypotheses should be accept (thus becoming theories) or rejected. While none of this can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I still suspect almost everyone will be fine with accepting these ideas.

The most logical question to ask next is whether or not all possible true statements can be found by such methods. Here is where many people begin to diverge quite rapidly in our thoughts. If indeed all possible true statements can be found through the scientific method, then in order for something to be true it must be capable of being proven false by some possible experiment unless it is true. The most immediate problem with this statement, though perhaps trivial, is that it is a violation of itself: the statement "in order for something to be true it must be capable of being proven false" is itself incapable of being proven false. Regardless, and this is just my personal opinion, I don't think the statement is true and don't see any particular reason to believe it would be. I can't make a definitive decree that the statement isn't true; simply that I don't think it is. That leads me to the conclusion that there is something else to truth beyond what we can be told by science.

So why Christ and not Thor? Or why not any number of prophets who have started the main world religions?

This question becomes increasingly difficult to consider simply because there are a far greater number of options that I could ever seriously, painstakingly, individually consider. So here again, I must rely on my judgment in that I have seen some large part of Christianity and some slice of human nature and the world and come to the conclusion the latter is consistent with Christianity. The beautiful, yet astounding idea that we ought to hate the sin vehemently but love the sinner relentlessly, that there is an objective morality not subject to either popular vote or the whims of society, that there is a point to our existence, that there is something more important that our own immediate gratification, that happiness is generally found not be be given everything we want but by losing things we have and letting them go without, that few things are heavier to carry than a grudge, and that everything we do has consequences whether we see them or not. Yes, the other religions of the world contain many of these messages and many elements of truth but the particular combination is uniquely Christian. And as for uniqueness, even moreso is the manifestation of the message: in a person. A person, who, unlike practically every other religious prophet actually claimed to be God himself (or at least his followers say he did). C.S. Lewis claimed there were three possibilities for Jesus: mad, bad, or God. Certainly there is also a fourth, that his followers embellished his life story. But I think we must also take a look at the way in which early Christianity spread: not by a conquering nation but by a defeated nation, by martyrs who believed in it so strongly they were willing to die for it. That isn't to say that other world religions haven't also had martyrs willing to die for them. But what it does show is that the people who supposedly lied about its contents also personally believed in it so much they were willing to give up everything.

Now to address your particular points:
The exactness of the meaning of Biblical literalism is somewhat sticky. A ton of Christians will claim to believe it literally but have completely different understandings of what that means. I believe that the Bible is literally true in the moral and theological truths it reveals. That is not to say I believe every historical detail is exactly accurate (particularly in the Old Testament). It was written by humans who are capable of messing things up. It did not drop out of the sky one day (in the King James Version of course ). I also find "self-evidence" to be a particularly unconvincing argument in practically every situation, the Bible included.

1. I don't necessarily see a reason why most of humanity necessarily needed to have access in order for the religion to be true. I am of the belief that a person will not be held liable by God for a wrong they had no knowledge or consent of. Thus, those who are truly invincibly ignorant will be judged accordingly.
2. God did not write in ancient scrolls, he appeared and/or communicated with people who then, often much later, decided they ought to record the interaction. The primary audience was the recipient of the revelation, so it is no surprise the worlds are mostly directed toward them.
3. The main distinction here is the general plan of salvation between the New and Old Testament is markedly different. The Old Testament idea was that God had chosen a nation, which he aided numerous times, to try and redeem the world through them. But this was incomplete and the law fulfilled by sending his son. Once the law was fulfilled and general revelation completed with him and his followers, no further general activity was needed for the preservation of the chosen people. Also note the extremely long time scales of the Old Testament and recognize the vast majority of people living in its span would have seen very little divine activity. The latter point, as to God's change in personality, again I would say the key is that his audience was different. Though moral truth (not necessarily disciplines, practices, and religious law) has not changed, the people of 3,000 years ago would have responded quite differently than the people of today and quite often even in the old testament days his rebukes against people were for failing to love their neighbor. The rules were themselves a list of practices that would be great health guidelines for surviving disease with no medical knowledge. They were simply practices built for those days and were completed when Christ came. Another thing to keep in mind when dissecting the subtleties is that the text was recorded by humans where also subject to the biases and thinking of their days. The portrayal of God at a particular point in time is not completely disconnected to the needs and understanding of the people in those days. The clearer answer was meant to be God incarnate, the person of Christ.