How can an atheist have a relationship with God?

[Athée]

Well, sure, athiests miss out on this comfort of knowing that there is a God, which makes me wonder, if there really is such a being, why does He not reveal Himself?

If I found out for certain that the Christian god existed as depicted in the bible I would not be comforted....

 

[Athée]

So what does one do if they are currently living a life without faith in God and want to change? Can you fake faith, or will it into existence?

My experience is that you can do as Pascal suggests (if you are unable to find real faith) and fake it till you make it. I wanted it all to be true so badly and lived as if it were. The human ability to deceive oneself is remarkable. I was ultimately bot able to sustain this but I did have myself thoroughly convinced for several years.

 

[Athée]

There has always been suffering in the world. There will also be injustice, but that is not evidence that there is no God.

The New Testament says that Jesus healed lepers, the crippled and the blind. But did He heal all of them throughout the world or only those that sought Him out and found Him?

I think your response points out pretty well that neither the good or the bad should be construed as evidence at all.

 

[Athée]

He has revealed Himself in a myriad of ways. He created everything. He created YOU. And He gave His Son. And He gave the Word of God (aka the Bible). You can choose to deny Him but that doesn't mean He hasn't done His part, because He most certainly has. And millions upon millions of people, much smarter than both you and I, believe in Him. People dedicate their entire lives to the study of how much God has revealed Himself to His creation - us humans. You will never be able to get to the end of how much He's revealed Himself if you just choose to look and listen.

Point of clarification. When you give something to someone then you no longer have it. It seems to me that God didn't give us Jesus so much as loaned him for a bit.

 

[Athée]

Well, you could start with a simple prayer. You could ask Him if He exists to reveal Himself to you personally. I did that at one time, over 20 years ago. And He answered and has never left my heart since.

I would like to add, however, that I never doubted the existence of God, I just wanted to know Him as more than the Creator or "life force," that I believed Him to be. I was raised Catholic and struggled a lot, not to believe God existed but to have a personal relationship with Him, as a Person. That was and still is more important to me than just being aware of God's existence. I really wanted to know Him and have a change in my heart and in my life. I prayed the prayer, known as the Salvation Prayer (easily found if you choose to find it), and for once prayed sincerely and with humility. I am beyond thankful I did that because it changed my life from that point on.

That is a great story and I am glad you found peace : ) When I say that I have a relationship with my wife, that means many things, we talk together, laugh together, raise our kids, fights, make up!, sing together, discuss how to pay bills etc. When you say you have a personal relationship with the god of the universe, what does that mean specifically?

 

[Athée]

To the original question: No, an Atheist cannot have a relationship with God.


Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

How does one get faith then?

 

[Athée]

Athee, God gave everyone a grace in their souls to find Him. Many utilize this grace and have found Him, many more do not utilize this grace. It seems to me that you are utilizing this grace, to find Him. How do I know this? I know this because you are here, wanting to learn of Him. Please do not bury this grace, but let it GROW, this Grace into Eternal Salvation.

Jesus Mary Bless you on your Journey Home.

So the elect we read of in the bible really means everyone? Are you a universalist?

 

[Athée]

That's a different issue, Mountain_Girl, one that you are bringing into the proposal that I'm suggesting (and one that, if I weren't so willing to accommodate other people's efforts, I might surmise was meant to provide an obstruction to the point I'm trying to suggest).

Sure....Hindus (of various yogas, castes, and stages of life), Buddhists (of either Big Raft or Little Raft belief), Muslims (of 3 or 4 kinds), Pagans (of both ancient and modern Wiccan strains), Shintoists, Taoists (Philosophical, or religious, or popular), along with Judaism's now multiplex of choices, and the many denominational perspectives on the Bible, will all have some peculiar values and a required "understanding of approach" by which to enter into that particular view. But, so what? Whether Christianity is true or not is not dependent on how those other religions view themselves or as to how they mandate their respective praxis in order for an adherent to carry on.

So, regardless of what the OTHER religions require, what I'm suggesting is that in order for you to begin to see Christianity as "true," regardless of the denomination you are in, there are some various contexts both inside and outside of the Bible which will have to be recognized as integral to an understanding of the theology of the Bible, contexts that may provide you an epistemic position by which you will become enabled to "access" the Christian faith. Of course, I'd be remiss if I failed to say that in the process of all of this, somewhere in there, God Himself will have to play some role in your perception (and even conception) of assurance.

Do you see what I'm getting at? (But, let's not bring in what other religions do or need on a perceptual scale because that is, in essence, is a "red-herring." Don't do that to yourself!)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'm not sure it is entirely a red herring. Couldn't an adherent of those beliefs equally say that there exists a contextual angle from which MG might view their traditions as epistemic realities just as you do about yours. Isn't this insistence on angles of context, another way of saying that Christianity is epistemically possibl, even if it can't be shown to be probable within most epistemological frameworks?

 

[Athée]

Well, it sounds like you're saying you once did have a belief in God but lost your faith somewhere along the way. But you must logically realize that does not mean God went anywhere. He is still there, waiting patiently for you to speak with Him (also known as prayer). The only way to reach God is through faith and prayer and His Word. Then, once you sincerely and humbly ask Him to fill your heart He will be faithful to do so. It is not difficult but I realize our minds can block God out for many reasons. Sometimes we have emotional pain, sometimes a person has let us down, sometimes we feel lonely and disconnected from God. All of those feelings are common to all human beings. It's ok to hurt and doubt and you can share those feelings with God. You can tell Him you really need Him to give you an unmistakable sign of His presence, to help you.

I've done that and He has always answered my prayers. I have prayed in faith during times of pain and He made it clear, in very sweet, loving and gentle ways that He was with me. He's even performed what I consider to be miraculous events for me, in the physical realm. For me to deny the existence of God I would have to actually deny my own sane, rational mind, that's how deep my faith goes. I have zero doubt about God. I have zero doubt of His sovereignty and power because of how my life has been. I wish I could share how deep and strong my faith is - it's hard to in words - but I would not be living on this earth right now if it weren't for God. He physically saved my life.

Many years ago, a man had attacked me and was beating me; I could have died then, and but for a miraculous intervention of God at that moment I probably would have. Invisible hands shoved the man off me and he ran away. I have no explanation for what happened other than it was God who saved me, because I called out the name of Jesus to help me, at that moment. I had almost lost consciousness but I saw the man fly across the room and slam against the wall. I didn't push him (I couldn't because I had been beaten too badly at that point to be able to fight any more) and there was nobody else there. This is a true story and humbles me to this day to remember it. God not only saved my soul for eternity but He also saved my physical life on this earth. Not because I deserved it because I'm nobody special. But I had faith in Him to save me and still do. I can't explain what happened other than it was God.

Let God in your heart and your life again. He will do wonderful and loving things for you. You're His child.

I'm glad you survived that and are happy today.
I wish I had a similar experience (not the beating!) but so far nothing despite years of prayers.

 

[Athée]

Hi Mountain,

That is somewhat closer, MG, although I'd be tempted to say that what I am more specifically referring to is the fact that the primary "evidences" of the Christian faith, whether seen through Catholic, Orthodox, or various Protestant lenses, will require some familiarity with the literary structures of Jewish, Biblical literature, historiography, and hermeneutical method. Of course, this is not to say that by simply studying these three fields, as they relate to the ancient Jewish mindset of the first few centuries from from B.C. to A.D., you will automatically have "the spiritual lights turn-on" in all their full glory. It would be great if they could, but I don't think this happens for nearly anyone, at least not at a luminosity level we might call "brilliant." However, what studying these hermeneutical patterns can do is give you a partial understanding for how the Jewish mindset, in its more ancient prophetic and its later Rabbinical varieties, lends itself to the thought structures and prophetic patterns we actually find in the Bible, as cryptic as they sometimes are. All of this is something a bit more than what the average Church teaching relates on a refined or extended, Augustinian level (i.e. in looking at say, the Catholic Catechism [link], I'm not finding much that relates to the finer details of exegesis and our understanding of the Bible--more is needed). For instance, until you can see "why" John the Baptist is a fulfillment of the prophecy made in Malachi regarding the "return" of Elijah, a fulfillment that exposes the typological patterns and epistemological motifs that run through the Old Testament, you will continue to come short of evidences ...

Sure, if we are perhaps born into any of the more Eastern notions of religion, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. But, if we are talking about a person who was born in the more Enlightened areas of Europe and/or North American, then there isn't as many social mores holding one back. For instance, I wasn't born into a particularly religious family, and despite the fact that Carl Sagan and Stan Lee were my childhood "gurus," my social milieu was more or less a non-intellectual one. But all of this didn't stop me from coming to new realizations one day and deciding to expand my academic horizons. It also didn't stop me from picking up a Bible and reading it for the first time when previous to that, I had little notion that such a thing may be useful to consider.


Well, fortunately, what I'm NOT saying is that you have to drop your Catholic predilections and make way for some "other" denominational viewpoint. That's not what this is about. As for myself, even though I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm very ecumenical and I take what I call the 2,000 Year Approach, meaning that everything in concert with the Christian faith as it has developed and even transmogrified through the centuries...is open for exploration. So, if you live in a "free," Western nation, MG, then you can simply decide to "Explore Your Faith" while remaining within your Roman Catholic tradition, if that makes you feel comfortable.

Anyway, all of this is a suggestion, as I stated earlier, MG It in no way is going to be a comprehensive cure for your doubts, but it can help to some extent. After that, however, it really is God who will have to take you the rest of the way into the eternity that we all hope to share together with our Trinitarian Lord.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Ah this makes more sense of what you meant by angles. I still think people from those other faith traditions would say that when you apply their hermeneutics and cultural frameworks etc that their faith is the most justified. You could argue about internal coherence of their position, as they could about yours (or mine for that matter - pardon the naturalist pun!) but I see now what you were getting at.

 

[Athée]

Hi Athee. Came into the forum today for the first time in a long time and was wondering what you were discussing and found this. I don't remember asking you this so: How and why were you a Christian?

Hey Once, good to hear from you. How are you and the family doing. Was Christmas as crazy on your end as it was here?
The readers digest version of my story is that I grew up non religious, in my late teens I met my future wife who was (and is) a strong Christian. I went with her to church, read a bunch of the new testament gave my life to Christ, repented of my sins before a holy god and lived for Him for many years. In my study one day I came across 1 Peter 3:15 and decided to really dig in to the supper for my faith. I wanted to be the best evangelist ever So, being academic by nature I started reading what the atheists were saying (started with the compilations edited by John Loftus of all things ) and read the Christian responses to them. In the end, after a period of 2 years or so I admitted to myself that I no longer believed.
Hope that helps.

 

[Athée]

It sounds like you've done some diverse searching, as I have, MG. And if Catholicism is where you feel you "connect" the best, the I'm glad you are where you are.

But....as to you expanding your search to Non-Christian Churches? In what way do you mean this? Because if you mean by it something like looking into the "Jehovah's Witnesses" or "Mormons," then that is very problematic. Don't waste your time. Or, if you look into the thoughts of the other, various World Religions, you're not going to find much there either (and I speak as one with a degree in philosophy which includes these topics).

But, if instead you mean that you could expand your search by looking into the beliefs of the Messianic Jews or Jews for Jesus, or even explore the varieties of Judaism and their approaches to the Bible--or something like that--then that in and of itself may be useful.

Besides, what specifically do you feel you are searching for? "Evidence"? Still, just "evidence"?

Personally, I've been around the "spiritual-block" in ways similar to yourself, and I can tell you that if all you are doing is searching for "evidence," you're going to find little to none of that kind of thing, or at least not the kind we all wish we had. No, what I suggest is that you work to understanding the diverse field of hermeneutics, along with epistemology. Of course, it won't hurt to still say your personal prayers, asking God for wisdom along the way.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'm with you on the Mormons and the Jw's, not sure that it is fair to write off all other worldviews as having little to no substance though, although maybe for her this will turn out to be the case. And I guess if she was raised in a western family there is a good chance than many of those ways of knowing and being will not feel inherently right and normative for her.

 

[Deadworm]

Remember, I conceded that connections with eyewitnesses are not quite proof. Rather, I treated these connections as necessary, but not sufficient conditions for a credible faith. The actual method for verifying the Gospel is yet to come.

Athee: "You assume that Paul received this from the Jerusalem apostles and I don't see why you make this assumption."

I make this assumption for these 3 reasons and more:
(1) Because Paul introduces his list of resurrection appearances with a standard formula for expression the transmission of tradition acknowledged by all the academic commentaries: "I passed on to you of first importance what I in turn received (1 Corinthians 15:3)."

(2) Because the sequence of an appearance to Peter and then to the 11 is independently confirmed by Luke.

(3) Because in Galatians Paul makes it clear that Peter, James, and John checked out the accuracy of Paul's Gospel (2:2, 6-8) and the Resurrection appearances are part of that Gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:1).


Athee: "A lot of this depends on the assertion that the gospels are written by the authors to whom they were later attributed and that they were in fact eyewitnesses, or recording the recollections of eyewitnesses. Could you make the case for these positions more plainly for me."

All we can do is identify the connections with eyewitnesses and combine that with logic. Again, consider these 3 points:

(1) Mark is our first canonical Gospel and it is used by both Matthew and Luke, but not by John. Mark is not a disciple and is otherwise a very minor figure in the early church, in fact, a figure whom Paul disgraced for his cowardice during Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 15:36-38). It seems unlikely that he would be invented as the author of the Gospel that bears his name. if the ascribed authorship were invented, one would expect an apostle to credited as the author.

(2) Papias says he dislikes written sources and claims to get his information from direct conversations with Jesus' disciples and those who were personally disciple by them. John the Elder, a disciple of Jesus (but not 1 of the 12) is Papias source for identifying Peter as the source of Mark's Gospel. Mark's role as Peter's assistant in Rome is independently supported by 3 sources: Papias, Justin Martyr, and 1 Peter 5:13.

(3) The Latinisms in Mark offer independent support for Papias's claim that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, just as Papias claims.

Then consider these 2 related points:
(1) Paul himself reports his own resurrection appearance, one that transformed him from a guilt-free hitman for the Pharisees into Jesus' greatest defender and promoter.
(2) In Paul's list, he mentions the appearance to Jesus' brother James. That appearance is the best way to solve a difficult puzzle: how the hostility of Jesus' brothers to His earthly claims was dropped after the crucifixion. Apparently, His brother James's Easter appearance was a key to the family's conversion.

 

[Athée]

Questions like these tell me the Church needs to take a more intensive look at the intricacies of epistemology, especially as it relates to the Christian faith and as to how it may interact with other fields such as psychology, sociology, philosophy of history, hermeneutics, pneumatology, eschatology, etc. (Excellent question, MG!)

I've got a question for you: Up to this point in your life, what has been your understanding as to what "finding Jesus/God" should amount to?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

This is a great question (as usual) and I while I have no idea how MG responded I have asked myself this many times. I still don't know. So I tend to just accept whatever the Christians who claim they have a personal relationship with this god tell me I should expect. They would know ...right?

 

[Athée]

That sounds like a good place to start, MG. And since I saw a plan of study developing between you and Once deceived, I'd encourage you to follow through with her in that study - just you two ladies. That should keep you busy. However, if in the meanwhile you find you have extra time and would like some additional academic level considerations, or you feel you've completed your study with Once deceived and want to journey in another direction, feel free to ask me for some study suggestions which may take you "further" along toward the Lord.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I would love to take you up on this but I will respect my commitment to deadworm first

 

[Athée]

Hey all, I have been a bit snarky in some of my responses tonight, if one of those was directed at one of your comments I apologize and will try to limit such occurrences moving forward. Scoring snark points can feel good in the moment but doesn't properly respect this subject, this forum, nor your willingness to engage in deep discussion.
Apologies

 

[Athée]

Remember, I conceded that connections with eyewitnesses are not quite proof. Rather, I treated these connections as necessary, but not sufficient conditions for a credible faith. The actual method for verifying the Gospel is yet to come.

Athee: "You assume that Paul received this from the Jerusalem apostles and I don't see why you make this assumption."

I make this assumption for these 3 reasons and more:
(1) Because Paul introduces his list of resurrection appearances with a standard formula for expression the transmission of tradition acknowledged by all the academic commentaries: "I passed on to you of first importance what I in turn received (1 Corinthians 15:3)."

(2) Because the sequence of an appearance to Peter and then to the 11 is independently confirmed by Luke.

(3) Because in Galatians Paul makes it clear that Peter, James, and John checked out the accuracy of Paul's Gospel (2:2, 6-8) and the Resurrection appearances are part of that Gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:1).

1) I don't see how the phrase you highlighted there links to a revelation from other humans. Paul nowhere that I can recall says that he gets any of his teachings from other diciples or apostles etc. He always received it from visions. Even if the others agree with him (and they don't always seem to) I don't agree that the phrase you bolded males any connection to a flesh and blood source of revelation.

2) But that is not the sequence in Paul. He says the appearances happened in this order: Cephus, the 12, the 500, James, the apostles (apparently different people than the 12) and last to him.

3) if they are checking it out doesn't it stand to reason that he didn't get his gospel from a source that they were already familiar with and trusted?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure it is entirely a red herring. Couldn't an adherent of those beliefs equally say that there exists a contextual angle from which MG might view their traditions as epistemic realities just as you do about yours. Isn't this insistence on angles of context, another way of saying that Christianity is epistemically possibl, even if it can't be shown to be probable within most epistemological frameworks?

Could they "equally" say? No, Athée, I really don't think so (and excuse me while I step on Loftus' big left toe. ) How would those other adherents be epistemically "equal" given the contextual parameters/considerations I mentioned to Mountain Girl?

Sure, we can say that Christian faith has a certain epistemic angle, as do the other religions in each of their own respective ways, but we should refrain from insinuating (from the outside looking in) that all of the religions are really just playing something along the line of the same sort of epistemic game. Given all of the historical, linguistic, cultural, perceptual and conceptual indices involved, we need to be observant of the full contexts into which each religion exists, and has existed, so as to avoid sinking into a quicksand of epistemic equivocation. An orange is not an apple; an apple is not a pear; a pear is not a strawberry--but sure, they are all fruit! And it is understandable that for someone who has a taste for toast (the foundation for butter ), none of the fruit will likely seem to be a satisfying option at the moment.

Christianity is epistemically possible, but only partially so. The human mind can start with the religious texts, experiences, and interaction with other religious minds, but God has to come into the play at some point and lead the interlocuter to the final destination of faith. It's not just brain work, although it can start with that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm with you on the Mormons and the Jw's, not sure that it is fair to write off all other worldviews as having little to no substance though, although maybe for her this will turn out to be the case. And I guess if she was raised in a western family there is a good chance than many of those ways of knowing and being will not feel inherently right and normative for her.

Well,....what I meant was that since I know that MG is mathematically and scientifically inclined, she'd probably have similar evaluations of those "other" religions as mine, but only a posteriori. I don't know that as a fact, but as a notion of experience. On my part, I don't discount them simply because I'm a Christian and have no further room for other religious thought from other quarters of the world, but because I have studied them on a philosophical level and found them wanting in various ways. And of course, it could all turn out I was confused and wrong in the end about each of them. ....................nah!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey Once, good to hear from you. How are you and the family doing. Was Christmas as crazy on your end as it was here?
The readers digest version of my story is that I grew up non religious, in my late teens I met my future wife who was (and is) a strong Christian. I went with her to church, read a bunch of the new testament gave my life to Christ, repented of my sins before a holy god and lived for Him for many years. In my study one day I came across 1 Peter 3:15 and decided to really dig in to the supper for my faith. I wanted to be the best evangelist ever So, being academic by nature I started reading what the atheists were saying (started with the compilations edited by John Loftus of all things ) and read the Christian responses to them. In the end, after a period of 2 years or so I admitted to myself that I no longer believed.
Hope that helps.

Loftus, ay? He's an apostate after my own denominational heart!