If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[Archaeopteryx]

The whole difference is, not all Christians who grew up in Christian families have a real experience with God. Being born in a Christian family is simply a privilege for a child to be taught in the Scriptures and to be exposed to the idea of a Creator, it is not a guarantee that someone will remain a professing Christian. To have a conversion experience, every single child or adult needs to have an experience with God. This is what happened to me, and when I was yet an atheist.

It is awfully presumptuous, rude even, for you to comment on other people's religious experiences, as if you had some inkling of what they actually experienced.

So it is clear that you also, changed your beliefs, upon reading men's works. Have you studied and tested the Dead Sea Scrolls? Have you tested the truthfulness of writings of both men who validate and discredit the Bible? Or did you merely assent to the side which made more sense to you? Error always results when someone looks and tests only one side of the story, but wholly ignore the other side.

Did you read for yourself how and what made some atheists turn to Christianity?

Have you read for yourself why many Christians leave the faith and become atheists?

Many among them are no less educated than professing atheists, so clearly something must have made them reject atheism. Its strange that current hardcore Christian-turned-atheists never thought of asking how these group of ex-atheists converted to Christianity, but then try to discredit Christianity as though their own conversion are more reliable than those who once professed atheism.

Oh please, you're hardly one to talk, given that you are here trying to belittle the religious experiences of those who have since left the faith.

 

[wiske]

You could not be more wrong.

I was a Christian for 40 years and at one time, actually dived into the bible for support and it took me on a journey I did not plan on; a thorough scholarly and historical review of the NT, by reading the works of many NT scholars and historians. I learned quite a bit in that effort, and it was one of the main reasons, I could not reconcile the Christian story any longer.

The vast majority of atheists are former Christians and they educated themselves and acquired knowledge throughout their life, that made the Christian story not believable. In fact, there was a study done several years ago, in which religious knowledge was tested amongst believers and non-believers and non-believers had a higher degree of religious knowledge than believers did.

Never assume an atheist got to where they are from a lack of learning or looking at the evidence, because it is usually the exact opposite and could also be why, people with higher degrees of education, also have a greater chance of being an atheist.

From what I know, they obtain their learning from bestsellers by Dawkins and other New Atheists. The internet offers thousandfold proof of this (at least as far as "internet atheists" are concerned). I have yet to meet an atheist who has profitably read Aristotle (more or less an unbeliever himself) and Aquinas. Even Anthony Flew, who was considered the greatest atheist of recent decades, until he rejected atheism, only began studying Aristotle at an advanced age.

 

[WindStaff]

Suppose that God manifests himself in some sort of physical or spiritual revelation, to you personally, you and a group of people, or to the entire planet.

He already did, his name was Jesus.

The world crucified him.

Tells you a lot about the world.

I suppose I would know him to be God the same as the twelve who followed him.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Excuse me, but I once was a Christian. I studied Christianity.

Then that only shows how little you know of those you are criticising.

And how detailed was that study? Merely reading some modern day conspiracies that seemingly makes sense? If so, that is not study.

I speak what I observe, nothing more nothing less. If I am wrong, it is because there was no explanation offered that I could use to evaluate deeper into the situation.

 

[Kylie]

I am not word-playing. Why would I mean "all atheists" if I know there are atheists who later converted to Christianity? I myself was an atheist until God converted me. I might have been unclear, but please don't impose meanings onto what I say because you have a different interpretation from what I actually mean.

My point is that you didn't specify that you were talking about a subgroup of atheists and it appeared that you were talking about ALL atheists.

Yes, or rather ex-atheists. I am among ex-atheists. Yet that doesn't discount the fact I was once an atheist. Lots of accounts of educated atheists-turned-Christians around if you just google it.

If they are ex-atheists, then they are not atheists who acknowledge God. You cannot say that a person who does a thing is a particular kind of person if they are not that kind of person when they do that thing.

By this logic, babies drive cars. I drive a car, and I was once a baby. But the car-driving does not occur during the time of being a baby, just as in your claim, god-acknowledgement does not occur during the period of being an atheist.

I feel like you are trying to debate with wordplay. Please try to be clear.

The Dead Sea Scrolls. You can very well obtain a reliable source of it yourself.

Ah, yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Let's see then.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date from between 408BCE at the earliest to 318 BCE at the latest. Let's just say that they were made 400 years before the alleged birth of Christ for the purposes of our discussion.

What do the Scrolls contain? Well, they contain some stories from the Bible. THIS one, for example, has a conversation between Lamech and Noah. So, this has to happen before Noah dies. According to Wikipedia's article on NOAH, he dies 350 years after the flood. So when was the flood? According to THIS page, the flood took place in 2304 BC ± 11 years. So between 2315 BCE and 2293 BCE. That means that this particular copy of the text was created about 2000 years AFTER the events it describes. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to consider a source that was made nearly 2000 years after the events it describes as accurate. Even today with modern analysis techniques, we have a hard time of it. I have absolutely no confidence that the people of 400 BCE would have been able to create reliable records of events that happened almost two thousand years previously.

Let's look at another one.

There is the Isaiah Scroll which, not surprisingly, contains the book of Isaiah that is in the Bible. The dates that the scroll was written range from between 335 BCE to 100BCE. The events described are claimed to be from the 8th century BCE, about 350 years before the scroll was written.

So, yeah, the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't actually contemporary sources. Can you provide any, as I asked?

 

[bhsmte]

From what I know, they obtain their learning from bestsellers by Dawkins and other New Atheists. The internet offers thousandfold proof of this (at least as far as "internet atheists" are concerned). I have yet to meet an atheist who has profitably read Aristotle (more or less an unbeliever himself) and Aquinas. Even Anthony Flew, who was considered the greatest atheist of recent decades, until he rejected atheism, only began studying Aristotle at an advanced age.

Have any evidence that people leave the faith because of simply reading Dawkins or other atheists books?

I doubt it, because there are plenty of studies out there that have actually asked this question to people who have lost their faith and although it may be disappointing to you, it is not because of Dawkins or the like, it is because of a realization, the stories they used to believe, become something they can no longer reconcile, as they acquire knowledge.

Again, this could be why, those who have achieved higher levels of education, are far more likely to be atheists.

You can't stop the knowledge and education train, it just keeps rolling along.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And how detailed was that study? Merely reading some modern day conspiracies that seemingly makes sense? If so, that is not study.

I seriously contemplated becoming a pastor, and before embarking for university I had intended on studying theology formally, to supplement my own reading on the subject.

 

[bhsmte]

And how detailed was that study? Merely reading some modern day conspiracies that seemingly makes sense? If so, that is not study.

I speak what I observe, nothing more nothing less. If I am wrong, it is because there was no explanation offered that I could use to evaluate deeper into the situation.

You must be a psychic.

And you're perception skills are clearly geared towards seeing what you want to protect you're personal beliefs.

 

[WoundedDeep]

It is awfully presumptuous, rude even, for you to comment on other people's religious experiences, as if you had some inkling of what they actually experienced.

Why are you offended? I am stating a fact that can be applied to anyone. A person, who is born into any faith, needs to experience the realities of the faith to be fully convinced. How is that rude?

Have you read for yourself why many Christians leave the faith and become atheists?

Yes, I have. Why?

Oh please, you're hardly one to talk, given that you are here trying to belittle the religious experiences of those who have since left the faith.

How do you know what I'm trying to do? Are you someone who can read hearts? All you did was to take a point I was trying to make personally (for reasons I don't even know of), and then accuse me of belittling.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I seriously contemplated becoming a pastor, and before embarking for university I had intended on studying theology formally, to supplement my own reading on the subject.

Did you seek God for yourself when you still believed in Him? Did you have any experience with Him?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why are you offended? I am stating a fact that can be applied to anyone. A person, who is born into any faith, needs to experience the realities of the faith to be fully convinced. How is that rude?

What's rude is your presumption that they haven't, or weren't fully convinced, and therefore were not sincere or devout.

Yes, I have. Why?

Because your posts seem to suggest otherwise.

How do you know what I'm trying to do? Are you someone who can read hearts? All you did was to take a point I was trying to make personally (for reasons I don't even know of), and then accuse me of belittling.

How do I know what you're trying to do? Because I've seen it done before: a Christian encounters a former Christian and dismisses or belittles his/her previous devotion, or worse still, claims that they were never a Christian at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did you seek God for yourself when you still believed in Him? Did you have any experience with Him?

Yes, I had intense and immersive experiences that you might describe as spiritual.

 

[bhsmte]

How do you know what I'm trying to do? Are you someone who can read hearts? All you did was to take a point I was trying to make personally (for reasons I don't even know of), and then accuse me of belittling.[/QUOTE]

By what you write, is sure appears you claim to be someone who can read hearts and minds for that matter.

 

[Roonwit]

From what I know, they obtain their learning from bestsellers by Dawkins and other New Atheists. The internet offers thousandfold proof of this (at least as far as "internet atheists" are concerned). I have yet to meet an atheist who has profitably read Aristotle (more or less an unbeliever himself) and Aquinas. Even Anthony Flew, who was considered the greatest atheist of recent decades, until he rejected atheism, only began studying Aristotle at an advanced age.

That's pretty sweeping. Actually, I think I probably know more atheists who take an active interest in the writings of Aristotle than I do Christians.

True, the majority of atheists I have come across hold their views fairly unthinkingly on the basis of people like Dawkins. But then, the majority of Christians I know hold their views pretty unthinkingly as well (perhaps the Christians have to think a bit harder these days, when atheism is on the march; just as 50 years ago the atheists had to think harder and tended to be on average cleverer). The tendency to let others do your thinking for you is neither a Christian nor an atheist trait, but a human one. We all have some areas where this happens, even if we are more inclined towards critical thinking. And both camps have people who have really thought through what they believe and have carefully considered the alternatives.

So let's not let debate descend into a slanging match about the presumed motives of all people who hold a different worldview to ourselves...

Peace and goodwill to all

 

[Tina W]

When a person talked to you over the phone, how do you know the person is your dad or mom?

Exactly!

My sheep know my voice. How do they know the voice of God, you ask?
Simple.
They know His voice because:
1. they are active listeners.
2. they are expectant listeners.
3. they are experienced listeners.

(and right there ^ is someone's next three point sermon for Sunday. )

I agree with this. The Bible says my sheep know my voice. It's a spiritual discernment that can't be explained. If you don't know God then you wouldn't really know if the being was God or not, but if you know God then your spirit would discern the truth. God doesn't change, so in addition to spiritual discernment, He wouldn't do anything contrary to the Word of God but an alien being or some other false god would. Their agenda would be different from what God would want.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Yes, I had intense and immersive experiences that you might describe as spiritual.

Please elaborate.

 

[WindStaff]

Have any evidence that people leave the faith because of simply reading Dawkins or other atheists books?

I doubt it, because there are plenty of studies out there that have actually asked this question to people who have lost their faith and although it may be disappointing to you, it is not because of Dawkins or the like, it is because of a realization, the stories they used to believe, become something they can no longer reconcile, as they acquire knowledge.

Again, this could be why, those who have achieved higher levels of education, are far more likely to be atheists.

You can't stop the knowledge and education train, it just keeps rolling along.

LOL, that's a good one. The notion that people abandon God because of knowledge

What absolute, preposterous slander for the justification of going atheist!
People stop believing in God for one reason and one reason alone- because they no longer want to think that there is a force which punishes disobedience but does not promise to deliver to their life all their desires.

All of the big atheist philosophers lost their faith to exactly that- the so called knowledge and philosophizing was just to try and justify their continued dissent after the fact.
And it's no different with all former believers.

How exactly does worldly knowledge, which avails no alternative to God, cause one to not believe in God?
Atheists cannot even be honest with themselves, so I don't really expect them to be honest about anything pertaining to religion_

 

[wiske]

Again, I ask you to provide sources for this.

I learnt this in secondary school approximately 45 years ago. Every Catholic school child knows this fact. So why must you fatigue me with such a request, when you can easily look it up yourself.

Why, it can even be found in Wikipedia (not that that's a source I endorse):

Traditional view - Luke the physician as author[edit]

The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[2][3] This Luke is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).

The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was nearly unanimous in the early Christian church.

So far a verbatim quote from Wikipedia.

Wouldn't it be better for you to do some reading - from time to time - about Christianity. After all you're posting in a Christian forum.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL, that's a good one. The notion that people abandon God because of knowledge

What absolute, preposterous slander for the justification of going atheist!
People stop believing in God for one reason and one reason alone- because they no longer want to think that there is a force which punishes disobedience but does not promise to deliver to their life all their desires.

All of the big atheist philosophers lost their faith to exactly that- the so called knowledge and philosophizing was just to try and justify their continued dissent after the fact.
And it's no different with all former believers.

How exactly does worldly knowledge, which avails no alternative to God, cause one to not believe in God?
Atheists cannot even be honest with themselves, so I don't really expect them to be honest about anything pertaining to religion_

I know it disturbs you, but it is reality.

You are free to deny it though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please elaborate.

It's difficult to describe. It's an inner sensation that I would feel during prayer, for example. A sensation that, at the time, I interpreted as originating from the divine.