Christians, what would it take...

[Paul01]

If somebody dug up some bones in Palestine, and could demonstrate uncontestably that they were those of Jesus of Nazareth...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually, the Torah addresses this very scenario in Deuteronomy 13:1-6

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.{P}

2 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

3 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

4 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

5 After the LORD your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave.

6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken perversion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.{S}


There's just one problem with a new God claimant arising and doing what you said he could to prove he was G-d to me, and then say something that contradicts verse 1 above. Moses' G-d showed up first. He spoke to Moses and millions of people heard. Millions of people saw the miracles of the exodus from Egypt. No other god ever did so before. The G-d of Moses proved himself first before any other.

By right of first dibs in the proof department, He sets the rules for anything that follows. Including instructing us in the verses above that even if a prophet arises and performs miracles, if ever he contradicts verse 1 and speaks of a different god, G-d has already warned us not to believe him, and instead we are to view his existence and power as a test allowed by G-d to see if we will cleave to Him, and not a false god, and thus obey G-d's commands and not follow after a false god. Even if the false prophet performed authentic miracles.

Its the right if first dibs. Any other G-d claimnant has already missed out on proving himself.

If the collective memory of that generation of millions of Jewish people were erased, and no longer transmitted from generation to generation as to this very day, then and only then would there be reason to not believe in the G-d of Moses and to go shopping for an alternative.

So which of these two statements would you say describes your beliefs more?

1. The evidence presented by an ancient book as well as my own personal experiences weigh more heavily upon my beliefs than the words of a god who appears before and can demonstrate his godhood.

2. Evidence doesn't factor into my beliefs as a christian.

I don't want to make this look like a false dichotomy, so if you feel there is a third choice which describes you better...feel free to share it. I only constructed those two statements because those are the only two logical conclusions I can draw from your reply.

Thanks for answering!!!

 

[Hammster]

For you to stop believing in Christianity? Hear me out on this, as I know you're probably already thinking this is a "trolling" thread, but it isn't. It's intended as a philosophical question regarding the importance of evidence in regards to your belief in Christianity. Seriously...please take the time to read through the OP and consider it as a sincere question. I'll explain...

I've been on this forum for awhile and every few months or so a new christian to the forum decides to pop the same question atheists here have all seem many times over. They want to know what, if anything, would get an atheist to believe in god? The atheists, depending on how tired they are of hearing/answering this question, usually respond with some form of evidence that would get them to reconsider their position on the lack of an existing god. So this got me thinking...why does no one ever really ask the same question of christians?

Granted, it's not the exact same question, since I'm not asking what it would take to get you to stop believing in god. Rather, I'm curious as to what kind of evidence would make you stop believing in christianity? For example...

Say that god appeared before you and some friends one day and proved to you that he was in fact god. Whatever it would take for him to do this...whether it's parting a sea, bringing someone back to life, curing a paraplegic of a spinal injury and making them walk again, telling you every prayer you ever made...exactly as you made it...and whether or not he answered those prayers, showing you that he's able to create life or even a tiny universe from nothing....whatever it would take for him to prove to you that he is, in fact, the one and only god...he does this to prove to you that he's god so that you'll take what he tells you next seriously.

He tells you christianity is wrong...Jesus was just some guy...that pretty much the whole story of the bible is made up and merely a work of fiction. He tells you this because (for whatever reason) he's tired to people living by a made-up story. Then he leaves...not sticking[bless and do not curse]around to answer your numerous questions.

Would you stop believing in christianity? Why or why not? If you wouldn't...does evidence mean nothing to your belief in christianity? (I'm only asking this because whatever evidence "against christianity" you would have after this experience would be more than you had "for christianity")

Also, extra credit if you tell me what god could do to prove to you that he is god.

It's an interesting question that's difficult to answer. I suppose if your example happened, then I would have no choice but to not believe.

However, He has communicated with us, so it's really a moot point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is very interesting that you would ask this question. I wonder if this happened to you, personally.

A similar scenario happened to me, not too different from what you are describing. Wow!

I have had a very close personal relationship with God for 15 years.

A year and a half ago a "voice" came to me. The voice was identical to what I thought was God's "voice", which I had been listening to for the past 15 years, except it didn't line up with the things I had been taught. The presence of something so full of love was upon me that it was nearly impossible to believe it wasn't God. That presence stayed with me for 2 weeks or more. It gave me perfect peace and there was absolutely no chance I could possibly sin during that time.

Here is an example of the peace: I am the biggest scaredy cat chicken that ever was, and I mean the biggest. My son had his driver's permit and I would completely freak out, even on our old country roads. So I kind of refused to take him out to practice. Well, when that presence came upon me it was no big deal, like nothing. I took him out each day, let him drive out by the mall even on the "big roads". Within 2 weeks he had the hours he needed, took the test, and got his license.

Shortly after that I began to go back to normal. Just the other day my son wanted to take me for a ride in his new vehicle. I hadn't been a passenger of his since that time over a year ago, and guess what? I was scared to death, holding on for dear life! Oh yeah, and I made him take the back roads

My first thought during my "experience" was that their were 2 voices, one God's and one a familiar spirit's. (several months later I found that Muslims believe the prophets, too, encountered this, interesting)

But right away with logic, I reasoned that God would not compete with another voice, with the chance that one could become deceived, just didn't sound like something the God I had come to know would do.

I was so filled with confusion. One night I awoke from sleep weeping and wailing and cried out, It was never true.

A voice that no one could ever convince me was not God's voice said; Write your testimony and everybody on earth will be saved.

So what did I do? I spent about a month writing my testimony. Shortly after that my eyes were opened to the key hidden inside, the key that was able to change the world ( hidden in this phrase: don't say a word, just pray and love). A month or so after that I began researching in depth, every religion I could find. It wasn't until an entire year later, Easter/Passover this year, that God opened my eyes to something huge. I've tried to share it, but getting someone to read a couple chapters with an open mind has become a harder task than what I had originally expected.

I believe Jesus was sent to open our eyes to truth, however we are still somehow looking through a glass darkly.

But I do still believe God, by his spirit, will convince the world. Zechariah 4:6 Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

For extra credit, what could God do to prove to me that He is God?

If He is able to use His creation to unearth the flying scroll described in Zechariah 5 that is buried under Solomon's Porch (1 Kings 6:3), like He told me He would. That indeed would be proof to me that He is God!!

That's an interesting story. To answer your question (though I'm not exactly sure what you meant) if I had an experience like the one I described in the OP, I would believe in god. The experience in the OP actually exceeds what I would probably need as evidence to believe in a god.

I suspect that the reason you've found it so hard to get others to listen to/read your testimony has to do with the fact that so many others seem to have similar experiences. I remember a conversation I had with a woman in another thread that arose out of the topic of speaking to god and god speaking back. She claimed she spoke to god all the time and he replied constantly. She said that god helps her with life's decisions...big and small. I had asked her for some examples and she gave me some...including one where she claimed god helped her pick out clothing to buy. I had a hard time taking this seriously, but she wasn't joking...she thinks god helps her choose what to wear. It sounds like a very trivial thing...but here you are claiming god helped you give your son driving lessons...

As I said, it seems trivial and rather strange for a god to give one woman advice on her blouse and alleviate your fear of teaching your son to drive when so many are suffering from very large very difficult problems and god doesn't seem even interested in those issues. Many many atheists will tell you that they've tried very hard to establish some kind of communication with god before they were atheist and never succeeding. I'm not saying that you're making your story up...I'm certain you believe what you're saying. Other people though, may find it very difficult to believe what you're saying based on their experiences.

Thank you for replying.

 

[Josephus]

So which of these two statements would you say describes your beliefs more?

1. The evidence presented by an ancient book as well as my own personal experiences weigh more heavily upon my beliefs than the words of a god who appears before and can demonstrate his godhood.

This.

No matter what one believes, one holds to a set of unprovable assumptions, called a worldview. This is true of theists and atheists both. Which set one holds to, is dependent upon a choice of the will. Each set is self reinforcing. That is the key to understanding any answer anyone gives to any question about "What would get you to believe/not believe."

Thus to ask the question "what evidence would it take that would convince you that what you believe is not true" when understood within the context of one's worldview... which in itself is dependent on unprovable assumptions, the answer is always ultimately "nothing," if one is honest with their worldview. Now one can change their answer but only after they choose a different worldview, but changing one set of unprovable assumptions for another set of unprovable assumptions is never based on reason, but personal choice. Faith. So then all that logically remains is a choice of the will to assume a different set of assumptions - a different worldview. And this is the challenge I give atheists all the time to great success: consider our set of assumptions and see if you can reason your way out of it. If you are honest with the assumptions, then you can't. So too I challenge Christians the same way - take on the assumptions of an atheist and reason your way out of it. If you are honest with the assumptions, you can't.

You are always left with an unprovable assumption. The box, or light, that is, the set of instructions that tells you how to interpret anything and everything around you. The same "evidence" for "proving" one worldview is interpreted differently by another worldview to prove theirs. It's quite interesting to see this play out in believer vs unbeliever discussions. If the discussion stays within reason, and not appealing to subjective experience, the result is always the same. No change, no surrendering of one's worldview in favor of another... unless challenged to do so up front. Which is what I do.

Do I believe the ancient book tells the truth? Only when I assume G-d exists, and the bible is inspired by Him. These are my root assumptions. If you held to those same assumptions, you will very well arrive at the same conclusions as I eventually. The same is true if I held to an atheist's set of assumptions - that G-d doesn't exist, and nature is all there is.

So when I assume the bible is true (innocent until proven guilty), I will believe when the G-d of Moses says he will send false prophets to test us in our love for Him, and whether or not we will obey His commands - and that the litmus for recognizing the test is in what the false prophet says (and not what he does), saying to follow after gods we have not known.

So then even if something claiming to be a god showed up with vast powers of even raising people to life - then my worldview precludes me from considering anything other than the warning the G-d of Moses tells me to be on the lookout for. To understand that the test before me is the very strange going-ons of this god claimer performing very real miracles. Will I cleave to G-d or follow after this god claimer? The answer is simple: I will follow after G-d. Anything else, and I've betrayed my own set of unprovable assumptions in favor of another set of unprovable assumptions.

 

[Aldebaran]

Say that god appeared before you and some friends one day and proved to you that he was in fact god. Whatever it would take for him to do this...whether it's parting a sea, bringing someone back to life, curing a paraplegic of a spinal injury and making them walk again, telling you every prayer you ever made...exactly as you made it...and whether or not he answered those prayers, showing you that he's able to create life or even a tiny universe from nothing....whatever it would take for him to prove to you that he is, in fact, the one and only god...he does this to prove to you that he's god so that you'll take what he tells you next seriously.

He tells you christianity is wrong...Jesus was just some guy...that pretty much the whole story of the bible is made up and merely a work of fiction. He tells you this because (for whatever reason) he's tired to people living by a made-up story. Then he leaves...not sticking[bless and do not curse]around to answer your numerous questions.

I believe this is pretty much what the antichrist of Revelation will do. He will do "miracles" and will bring the world together in "peace" like no other world leader has been able to do. Of course, the whole world will follow after him, as long as they agree to worship him, which most people will gladly do.

So Ana, this scenario you came up with isn't that far off from what will eventually happen. But to answer your question: No, I would not abandon my faith to follow such a person. I've already been warned that such false christs and false gods will be coming into the picture.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This.

No matter what one believes, one holds to a set of unprovable assumptions, called a worldview. This is true of theists and atheists both. Which set one holds to, is dependent upon a choice of the will. Each set is self reinforcing. That is the key to understanding any answer anyone gives to any question about "What would get you to believe/not believe."

Thus to ask the question "what evidence would it take that would convince you that what you believe is not true" when understood within the context of one's worldview... which in itself is dependent on unprovable assumptions, the answer is always ultimately "nothing," if one is honest with their worldview. Now one can change their answer but only after they choose a different worldview, but changing one set of unprovable assumptions for another set of unprovable assumptions is never based on reason, but personal choice. Faith. So then all that logically remains is a choice of the will to assume a different set of assumptions - a different worldview. And this is the challenge I give atheists all the time to great success: consider our set of assumptions and see if you can reason your way out of it. If you are honest with the assumptions, then you can't. So too I challenge Christians the same way - take on the assumptions of an atheist and reason your way out of it. If you are honest with the assumptions, you can't.

You are always left with an unprovable assumption. The box, or light, that is, the set of instructions that tells you how to interpret anything and everything around you. The same "evidence" for "proving" one worldview is interpreted differently by another worldview to prove theirs. It's quite interesting to see this play out in believer vs unbeliever discussions. If the discussion stays within reason, and not appealing to subjective experience, the result is always the same. No change, no surrendering of one's worldview in favor of another... unless challenged to do so up front. Which is what I do.

Do I believe the ancient book tells the truth? Only when I assume G-d exists, and the bible is inspired by Him. These are my root assumptions. If you held to those same assumptions, you will very well arrive at the same conclusions as I eventually. The same is true if I held to an atheist's set of assumptions - that G-d doesn't exist, and nature is all there is.

So when I assume the bible is true (innocent until proven guilty), I will believe when the G-d of Moses says he will send false prophets to test us in our love for Him, and whether or not we will obey His commands - and that the litmus for recognizing the test is in what the false prophet says (and not what he does), saying to follow after gods we have not known.

So then even if something claiming to be a god showed up with vast powers of even raising people to life - then my worldview precludes me from considering anything other than the warning the G-d of Moses tells me to be on the lookout for. To understand that the test before me is the very strange going-ons of this god claimer performing very real miracles. Will I cleave to G-d or follow after this god claimer? The answer is simple: I will follow after G-d. Anything else, and I've betrayed my own set of unprovable assumptions in favor of another set of unprovable assumptions.

I agree with what you're saying about not being able to prove every assumption (belief) that I have...no one can. The things I believe I believe because of the evidence that I'm aware of regarding them...but I can't necessarily prove much of my beliefs. On that much we agree, but then you went on to say this....

"And this is the challenge I give atheists all the time to great success: consider our set of assumptions and see if you can reason your way out of it. If you are honest with the assumptions, then you can't."

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. It's hard for me to come up with any beliefs I hold that would not change if I were given sufficient evidence otherwise. For example, it's no secret that Idon't believe in god....but if I were faced with a scenario like the one I've outlined in the OP....I would instantly believe in the existence of god. That's where I think you and I differ...I'm far more concerned with the truth than believing my "worldview" is correct. If the evidence shows that something I believe in is wrong...well then I was wrong and I change mybeliefs. Maybe that isn't the case for you...but I don't see why you think everyone else thinks as you do. As this thread has shown...even some christians will change their beliefs, beliefs they hold above all others...in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I believe this is pretty much what the antichrist of Revelation will do. He will do "miracles" and will bring the world together in "peace" like no other world leader has been able to do. Of course, the whole world will follow after him, as long as they agree to worship him, which most people will gladly do.

So Ana, this scenario you came up with isn't that far off from what will eventually happen. But to answer your question: No, I would not abandon my faith to follow such a person. I've already been warned that such false christs and false gods will be coming into the picture.

I was always under the impression that god had "powers" that no other being possessed. You're saying that the anti-christ supposedly has the same infinite powers that god has?

 

[Targaryen]

For you to stop believing in Christianity? Hear me out on this, as I know you're probably already thinking this is a "trolling" thread, but it isn't. It's intended as a philosophical question regarding the importance of evidence in regards to your belief in Christianity. Seriously...please take the time to read through the OP and consider it as a sincere question. I'll explain...

I've been on this forum for awhile and every few months or so a new christian to the forum decides to pop the same question atheists here have all seem many times over. They want to know what, if anything, would get an atheist to believe in god? The atheists, depending on how tired they are of hearing/answering this question, usually respond with some form of evidence that would get them to reconsider their position on the lack of an existing god. So this got me thinking...why does no one ever really ask the same question of christians?

Granted, it's not the exact same question, since I'm not asking what it would take to get you to stop believing in god. Rather, I'm curious as to what kind of evidence would make you stop believing in christianity? For example...

Say that god appeared before you and some friends one day and proved to you that he was in fact god. Whatever it would take for him to do this...whether it's parting a sea, bringing someone back to life, curing a paraplegic of a spinal injury and making them walk again, telling you every prayer you ever made...exactly as you made it...and whether or not he answered those prayers, showing you that he's able to create life or even a tiny universe from nothing....whatever it would take for him to prove to you that he is, in fact, the one and only god...he does this to prove to you that he's god so that you'll take what he tells you next seriously.

He tells you christianity is wrong...Jesus was just some guy...that pretty much the whole story of the bible is made up and merely a work of fiction. He tells you this because (for whatever reason) he's tired to people living by a made-up story. Then he leaves...not sticking[bless and do not curse]around to answer your numerous questions.

Would you stop believing in christianity? Why or why not? If you wouldn't...does evidence mean nothing to your belief in christianity? (I'm only asking this because whatever evidence "against christianity" you would have after this experience would be more than you had "for christianity")

Also, extra credit if you tell me what god could do to prove to you that he is god.

Only an atheist would think this is a valid question.

An atheist has no faith...a Christian does. So really the hypothesis is rather moronic cause you are used to decrying anything you can't prove or have signs in as a myth and usually in the atheistic sense, all myths are dangerous.

God doesn't have anything to prove or disprove. Believers will find signs and those that don't...won't.

You need to have signs and facts and you can't work under a process of faith which is belief without seeing.

If I had to answer you're question...I'd say, well if that was the case...why wait till now?

But that won't be the case cause unlike you, God needs to prove nothing.

 

[Aldebaran]

I was always under the impression that god had "powers" that no other being possessed. You're saying that the anti-christ supposedly has the same infinite powers that god has?

Not at all. But in the book of Revelation, it is shown that antichrist will come into the world and display many wonders that will impress the majority of people on earth. He will have supernatural powers and the world will follow after him. Well, here's the complete description in Revelation 13. What's scary is that many atheists here have told me that if they saw someone do these things, they would believe he was God:

13 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only an atheist would think this is a valid question.

An atheist has no faith...a Christian does. So really the hypothesis is rather moronic cause you are used to decrying anything you can't prove or have signs in as a myth and usually in the atheistic sense, all myths are dangerous.

God doesn't have anything to prove or disprove. Believers will find signs and those that don't...won't.

You need to have signs and facts and you can't work under a process of faith which is belief without seeing.

If I had to answer you're question...I'd say, well if that was the case...why wait till now?

But that won't be the case cause unlike you, God needs to prove nothing.

I really don't understand what you're getting at about faith or what my being an atheist has to do with the question. I also don't know why you would think that god "doesn't have something to prove" since you're christian...obviously you believe god had something to prove at some point.

Why wait until now? Does it really matter? Maybe 2000 years is a "day" to god so when he saw mankind screwing up before bedtime...he decided he'd clear things up for us in the morning. Maybe he wanted to wait until cameras and digital recording devices and the internet were invented...that way his message could reach everyone without any misunderstanding or disagreement about what he said this time. If you think about it, there's lots of good reasons to wait until now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not at all. But in the book of Revelation, it is shown that antichrist will come into the world and display many wonders that will impress the majority of people on earth. He will have supernatural powers and the world will follow after him. Well, here's the complete description in Revelation 13. What's scary is that many atheists here have told me that if they saw someone do these things, they would believe he was God:

13 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Sure...but I'm describing a being that's capable of creating a universe. You don't think the antichrist is capable of that....do you?

Edit: maybe it would be easier to just ask if there's anything god can do that the antichrist cannot?

 

[Aldebaran]

Sure...but I'm describing a being that's capable of creating a universe. You don't think the antichrist is capable of that....do you?

No. But people can, and will, be fooled by much less. All it takes is the ability to really impress people, and they'll worship someone as a god.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. But people can, and will, be fooled by much less. All it takes is the ability to really impress people, and they'll worship someone as a god.

Well since you seem to know better...you would know that it's god who has appeared before you and not the antichrist. So how would you answer the OP?

 

[Targaryen]

I really don't understand what you're getting at about faith or what my being an atheist has to do with the question. I also don't know why you would think that god "doesn't have something to prove" since you're christian...obviously you believe god had something to prove at some point.

Did he? No, God had nothing to prove or disprove if I believed or not. Cause I took the information I was provided in the church, came to my own conclusion based on things I saw doesn't mean God had something to prove to me. If anything I had something to prove with my belief or disbelief.

Why wait until now? Does it really matter? Maybe 2000 years is a "day" to god so when he saw mankind screwing up before bedtime...he decided he'd clear things up for us in the morning. Maybe he wanted to wait until cameras and digital recording devices and the internet were invented...that way his message could reach everyone without any misunderstanding or disagreement about what he said this time. If you think about it, there's lots of good reasons to wait until now.

Why does it matter? It doesn't. So why does it matter to YOU to prove he doesn't exist now? Unlike some around here, the fact you're an atheist doesn't bother me much. I find it more annoying sure when the reverse prosetylization technique is used with any person of faith,Christian or not cause the idea is "you're wrong and this is why you are wrong" which is less based on facts then based on opinion.

So your opinion is god doesn't exist...great. that's between you and god really, not my place to interfere. But at the same token, it's not really your job to tell others what they can or cannot believe either.

As for the "recording" premise. sure, if he really wanted to I guess. But what would he have to prove either? So, Christianity could prove to be faulty. It still brought people to God and he'd deal with the facts when HE feels it's time to judge. the only timeline he would answer to is his own, not something manmade.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well since you seem to know better...you would know that it's god who has appeared before you and not the antichrist. So how would you answer the OP?

You mean about what it would take to make me not believe in Christianity, that is in Christ? I guess if after I died and judgement day came, and Christ was with me at the throne, and God the Father said, "You are in my son, and he is in you, but we were just kidding that his dying on the cross and being raised from the dead and ascending to Heaven and your acceptance of his gift of forgiveness would save you from your sin".
Then I guess I'd no longer believe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did he? No, God had nothing to prove or disprove if I believed or not. Cause I took the information I was provided in the church, came to my own conclusion based on things I saw doesn't mean God had something to prove to me. If anything I had something to prove with my belief or disbelief.



Why does it matter? It doesn't. So why does it matter to YOU to prove he doesn't exist now? Unlike some around here, the fact you're an atheist doesn't bother me much. I find it more annoying sure when the reverse prosetylization technique is used with any person of faith,Christian or not cause the idea is "you're wrong and this is why you are wrong" which is less based on facts then based on opinion.

So your opinion is god doesn't exist...great. that's between you and god really, not my place to interfere. But at the same token, it's not really your job to tell others what they can or cannot believe either.

As for the "recording" premise. sure, if he really wanted to I guess. But what would he have to prove either? So, Christianity could prove to be faulty. It still brought people to God and he'd deal with the facts when HE feels it's time to judge. the only timeline he would answer to is his own, not something manmade.

You're saying god didn't have anything to "prove" to man to get him to believe in god, or his word, or anything. Yet you believe that god came to earth as Jesus (or some version of that) to preach to man, die for our sins, and be resurrected back to life. You may not think that's god proving himself to man, but IMO it clearly is.

As for my beliefs as an atheist...they don't have anything to do with this thread. Did you actually read the topic? I haven't mentioned my beliefs except once to answer a question that a poster had regarding them. So if you've got some bone to pick with atheism, it isn't because of me.

"So why does it matter to YOU to prove he doesn't exist now?"

I didn't say it did, nor did I try to prove anything.

"I find it more annoying sure when the reverse prosetylization technique is used with any person of faith,Christian or not cause the idea is "you're wrong and this is why you are wrong" which is less based on facts then based on opinion."

I don't recall doing anything of the sort...can you copy and paste or quote me where I did?

" But at the same token, it's not really your job to tell others what they can or cannot believe either."

I'm pretty sure I didn't tell anyone what they can or can't believe anywhere in this thread. Are you sure that you're not posting in the wrong thread?

"So, Christianity could prove to be faulty. It still brought people to God...."

Would you say the same thing about Islam or Hinduism? That it doesn't matter that they're wrong as long as they brought people to god?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You mean about what it would take to make me not believe in Christianity, that is in Christ? I guess if after I died and judgement day came, and Christ was with me at the throne, and God the Father said, "You are in my son, and he is in you, but we were just kidding that his dying on the cross and being raised from the dead and ascending to Heaven and your acceptance of his gift of forgiveness would save you from your sin".
Then I guess I'd no longer believe.

Lol that's a pretty narrow set of circumstances...but ty for answering!

 

[Aldebaran]

Lol that's a pretty narrow set of circumstances...but ty for answering!

Yeah, well I guess that's about the only solid thing I could come up with. He pretty much would have to tell me Himself in Heaven. Now, as for here on earth, I'm not sure I could come up with any real instances. All kinds of arguments come up even on this forum (from atheists) reasons to no longer believe in Christianity. But I notice they are usually formed around faulty logic, or false pretenses.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, well I guess that's about the only solid thing I could come up with. He pretty much would have to tell me Himself in Heaven. Now, as for here on earth, I'm not sure I could come up with any real instances. All kinds of arguments come up even on this forum (from atheists) reasons to no longer believe in Christianity. But I notice they are usually formed around faulty logic, or false pretenses.

I've seen atheists come up with reasons why christianity may be false, or wrong, or illogical. I can't recall any atheists explaining why someone should "no longer believe in christianity" as you put it. It might make an interesting topic though.