My Journey From Being an Atheist to an Agnostic to an Calvinist Christian

[ObamaChristian]

I grew up in a Household that was somewhat religious, where my family worshipped various sects of Buddhism (Guan Yin, Bao Shin Da De). I never truly believed and suppose in that sense considered myself a Atheist, although growing up I never pondered about the existence of higher powers, but simply that I didn't believe in the Gods that my parents worshipped.

I have in my high school life attended church maybe 3 times dragged there by a friend. It absolutely disgusted me. The preacher prayed about giving to the poor, and yet his wealth was apparent and the size of the church was unnecessary. I was very turned off by the religion.

Around the time I attended college, I started giving the existence of God some serious thought. It was around this time I started looking into rationale arguments for the existence of a God rather than arguments for any particular religion.

What came up were, the intelligent watch maker argument (quite a popular one but I personally hate it as unintelligent rabble). Then, there was Pascal's wager, and although this had some appeal to me, this argument would apply towards the same in a belief of a flying spaghetti monster so long as belief in that monster promised infinite rewards, making the wager worth wild.

Saint Anselm's argument (I don't remember the name for it), was perhaps one of the more interesting ones but still premised on rather absurd things.

In a very bare bones outline, there are three types of existence. To exist is "greater" than non-existence. God's attribute is the greatest there is. There exists something greater than the greatest thing I can imagine, if existence is better than non-existence, than the thing I can imagine that is the greatest, must exist.

It was something weird like that, give me a break if I described it wrong, it has been almost 15 years. Then for a bit I read more pantheistic views of God, as well as works of Rene Decarte.

I come to the conclusion that being an Agnostic was more rationale than being a Atheist and changed my belief. Along with that acceptance, I became open to the idea that God could exist.

I start reading the works of Alvin Plantinga around this time, (a famous Christian philosopher that graduated from Calvin College, a Christian Reformed Church). I became quite fascinated by the beliefs of John Calvin. But then, I read a book by CS Lewis called Mere Christianity and it turned me off once again to the religion.

A few years later, I went to a Christian Reformed Church and started going back into the calvinism type of philosophy. I think what ultimately did drag me into Christianity was a emotional type of argument.

I picked Christianity because of Calvinism, although my belief in Christ is based on faith, I think it is more rationally to have a belief in God rather than none. Although I think being a Agnostic would be the most rationale one.

So in my opinion it would be
Most reasonable: Agnostic
Then: Belief in some sort of God
Then: Belief in no God

Anyone here started off as a atheist and progressed towards being a believer?
Care to share?

Thanks

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I grew up in a Household that was somewhat religious, where my family worshipped various sects of Buddhism (Guan Yin, Bao Shin Da De). I never truly believed and suppose in that sense considered myself a Atheist, although growing up I never pondered about the existence of higher powers, but simply that I didn't believe in the Gods that my parents worshipped.

I have in my high school life attended church maybe 3 times dragged there by a friend. It absolutely disgusted me. The preacher prayed about giving to the poor, and yet his wealth was apparent and the size of the church was unnecessary. I was very turned off by the religion.

Around the time I attended college, I started giving the existence of God some serious thought. It was around this time I started looking into rationale arguments for the existence of a God rather than arguments for any particular religion.

What came up were, the intelligent watch maker argument (quite a popular one but I personally hate it as unintelligent rabble). Then, there was Pascal's wager, and although this had some appeal to me, this argument would apply towards the same in a belief of a flying spaghetti monster so long as belief in that monster promised infinite rewards, making the wager worth wild.

Saint Anselm's argument (I don't remember the name for it), was perhaps one of the more interesting ones but still premised on rather absurd things.

In a very bare bones outline, there are three types of existence. To exist is "greater" than non-existence. God's attribute is the greatest there is. There exists something greater than the greatest thing I can imagine, if existence is better than non-existence, than the thing I can imagine that is the greatest, must exist.

It was something weird like that, give me a break if I described it wrong, it has been almost 15 years. Then for a bit I read more pantheistic views of God, as well as works of Rene Decarte.

I come to the conclusion that being an Agnostic was more rationale than being a Atheist and changed my belief. Along with that acceptance, I became open to the idea that God could exist.

I start reading the works of Alvin Plantinga around this time, (a famous Christian philosopher that graduated from Calvin College, a Christian Reformed Church). I became quite fascinated by the beliefs of John Calvin. But then, I read a book by CS Lewis called Mere Christianity and it turned me off once again to the religion.

A few years later, I went to a Christian Reformed Church and started going back into the calvinism type of philosophy. I think what ultimately did drag me into Christianity was a emotional type of argument.

I picked Christianity because of Calvinism, although my belief in Christ is based on faith, I think it is more rationally to have a belief in God rather than none. Although I think being a Agnostic would be the most rationale one.

So in my opinion it would be
Most reasonable: Agnostic
Then: Belief in some sort of God
Then: Belief in no God

Anyone here started off as a atheist and progressed towards being a believer?
Care to share?

Thanks

My story is not one of an atheist who became a believer, but rather the opposite - a former believer who is now an atheist. Like you, I didn't grow up in a particularly religious household, but I was very religious. It seems somewhat cliche to describe one's deconversion as a long, often arduous, process of reading more widely and thinking deeply about religion, faith, the divine, etc. Sparing the details, that's basically how my deconversion unfolded.

I picked Christianity because of Calvinism, although my belief in Christ is based on faith, I think it is more rationally to have a belief in God rather than none. Although I think being a Agnostic would be the most rationale one. So in my opinion it would be
Most reasonable: Agnostic
Then: Belief in some sort of God
Then: Belief in no God

You seem to be assuming that agnosticism is incompatible with atheism and theism. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You can also be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist.

 

[High Fidelity]

Thanks for sharing.

Just curious if you're fortunate enough to own Calvin's Commentaries?

They are fantastic. The set overall isn't particularly cheap, but when you consider there are 22 sizeable books, the price becomes easier justified.

It goes through fits and spurts of publishing, so you may struggle to find a set, but if you have 300-500 dollars you would be willing to invest in them, they're definitely worth it.

 

[quatona]

Sounds like you are enjoying your journey. Let´s see where it takes you next.

 

[Received]

Why Calvinism?

 

[dhh712]

Anyone here started off as a atheist and progressed towards being a believer?
Care to share?

Thanks

My story is somewhat similar to yours regarding the progression: grew up in some-what religious household (catholic for me), then turned atheist/agnostic around college, now am a believer upon Christ because of His gift of faith to me (am a Calvinist Christian as well). I run into logical arguments for both believing in God and not believing in God; I'm not knowledgeable enough in the art of logic to discern the flaws of each of these arguments.

For me the reasonability of belief has little to nothing at all to do with my belief. I used to pride myself on my reason and practicality and while I still hold this in high regard in my dealings with the world, in my dealings with God I am aware that my limited mind (as is everyone's in existence) cannot comprehend the infinity that is God. His logic and reason is more perfect than ours and is something we can never attain to in this life. Common (basic) worldly logic tells us that God is responsible for sin since He is the cause of all things, yet that of course is not true; that is why our logic is corrupt.

I haven't the time to go into the details of my story (how I was led to belief); perhaps I can go into it at a later time.

 

[Paradoxum]

You don't actually explain why you became a Christian. What convinced you?

I'd say it's more reasonable to not believe in God, since there's no reason to believe in God. A lack of belief in God is atheism.

(I used to be a committed Christian, then became atheist).

 

[Lollerskates]

I like the testimony O.

But, I wouldn't say existing is better than not existing for everyone. But, I definitely understand you/that.

I started out agnostic, became born again at 17, then slowly drifted away again. I have no doubt He exists... I am just getting a feeling I ain't invited to the party with the cool kids, so to speak.

I would almost consider myself a stoic.

 

[South Bound]

nt

 

[ObamaChristian]

Why Calvinism?

The doctrine of irresistible grace was very appealing to me.
It felt somewhat like at the view of universalism, while at the sometime not quite.

 

[bhsmte]

I grew up in a Household that was somewhat religious, where my family worshipped various sects of Buddhism (Guan Yin, Bao Shin Da De). I never truly believed and suppose in that sense considered myself a Atheist, although growing up I never pondered about the existence of higher powers, but simply that I didn't believe in the Gods that my parents worshipped.

I have in my high school life attended church maybe 3 times dragged there by a friend. It absolutely disgusted me. The preacher prayed about giving to the poor, and yet his wealth was apparent and the size of the church was unnecessary. I was very turned off by the religion.

Around the time I attended college, I started giving the existence of God some serious thought. It was around this time I started looking into rationale arguments for the existence of a God rather than arguments for any particular religion.

What came up were, the intelligent watch maker argument (quite a popular one but I personally hate it as unintelligent rabble). Then, there was Pascal's wager, and although this had some appeal to me, this argument would apply towards the same in a belief of a flying spaghetti monster so long as belief in that monster promised infinite rewards, making the wager worth wild.

Saint Anselm's argument (I don't remember the name for it), was perhaps one of the more interesting ones but still premised on rather absurd things.

In a very bare bones outline, there are three types of existence. To exist is "greater" than non-existence. God's attribute is the greatest there is. There exists something greater than the greatest thing I can imagine, if existence is better than non-existence, than the thing I can imagine that is the greatest, must exist.

It was something weird like that, give me a break if I described it wrong, it has been almost 15 years. Then for a bit I read more pantheistic views of God, as well as works of Rene Decarte.

I come to the conclusion that being an Agnostic was more rationale than being a Atheist and changed my belief. Along with that acceptance, I became open to the idea that God could exist.

I start reading the works of Alvin Plantinga around this time, (a famous Christian philosopher that graduated from Calvin College, a Christian Reformed Church). I became quite fascinated by the beliefs of John Calvin. But then, I read a book by CS Lewis called Mere Christianity and it turned me off once again to the religion.

A few years later, I went to a Christian Reformed Church and started going back into the calvinism type of philosophy. I think what ultimately did drag me into Christianity was a emotional type of argument.

I picked Christianity because of Calvinism, although my belief in Christ is based on faith, I think it is more rationally to have a belief in God rather than none. Although I think being a Agnostic would be the most rationale one.

So in my opinion it would be
Most reasonable: Agnostic
Then: Belief in some sort of God
Then: Belief in no God

Anyone here started off as a atheist and progressed towards being a believer?
Care to share?

Thanks

How would you go about defining what is reasonable for each person? I certainly wouldn't start with what is reasonable for you, as I wouldn't start with what is reasonable for me.

We are all individuals, if your positions makes you a better person, you have chosen the right position.

 

[ObamaChristian]

You don't actually explain why you became a Christian. What convinced you?

I'd say it's more reasonable to not believe in God, since there's no reason to believe in God. A lack of belief in God is atheism.

(I used to be a committed Christian, then became atheist).

Well like I said it was more of a emotional reason, rather than a rationale one. I met my future wife, I came out of my depression and was happy.

Somehow faith became far more important to me. I used to be a practicing lawyer, but now I'm in business. Once, someone told me something that changed me greatly.

I told this person that I am always willing to change my opinion if I could be persuaded. That is how I told him I think I will find truth. I was someone that could rather easily have my opinion changed if someone could convince me with greater reason as to why.

The first thing this person convinced me of, was that reason had nothing to do with truth, being a lawyer I should very well know this, the most rationale argument doesn't necessarily mean truth, it merely means you have the better argument.

Rather, this person asked me to have faith. If I am always changing my opinions based on what is more reasonable, I would be a person who lacked conviction, I should have enough faith in my beliefs, that even if someone smarter than me tried to convince me of something, it would not be so easy.

I made a thread, describing what faith is to me in another thread. I stand by that, I came to the realization that I did not need reasons to believe in God. I simply just do believe. Can I ascribe why I do? I cannot. My belief makes me happy, it makes me want to do good in this world, and I feel this sensation that feels like God is just there. No amount of evil in this world can take this feeling away from me. I can see the horrible things in the world, yet, for reasons I cannot explain, I know/believe there is a loving God (very similarly to why I feel more lucky on my birthday but to such a stronger degree).

My faith in God is not based on reason, because I don't need reasons to believe in God.

I simply just do. It's hard to explain, unless you have this feeling. My wife is not a Christian by the way.

 

[ObamaChristian]

Thanks for sharing.

Just curious if you're fortunate enough to own Calvin's Commentaries?

They are fantastic. The set overall isn't particularly cheap, but when you consider there are 22 sizeable books, the price becomes easier justified.

It goes through fits and spurts of publishing, so you may struggle to find a set, but if you have 300-500 dollars you would be willing to invest in them, they're definitely worth it.

No I do not have them, I will look into acquiring them.

Thank you

 

[Paradoxum]

Well like I said it was more of a emotional reason, rather than a rationale one. I met my future wife, I came out of my depression and was happy.

The first thing this person convinced me of, was that reason had nothing to do with truth, being a lawyer I should very well know this, the most rationale argument doesn't necessarily mean truth, it merely means you have the better argument.

Reason is the only way to make decisions on things though. The reasons can be wrong sometimes, but they are the best, and only thing we have. And it if the best way to find the truth.

If an argument is good, but doesn't justify belief, then you can just take no position on the issue.

Rather, this person asked me to have faith. If I am always changing my opinions based on what is more reasonable, I would be a person who lacked conviction, I should have enough faith in my beliefs, that even if someone smarter than me tried to convince me of something, it would not be so easy.

There's nothing wrong with a lack of conviction, if there's no reason to have strong conviction.

I made a thread, describing what faith is to me in another thread. I stand by that, I came to the realization that I did not need reasons to believe in God. I simply just do believe. Can I ascribe why I do? I cannot. My belief makes me happy, it makes me want to do good in this world, and I feel this sensation that feels like God is just there. No amount of evil in this world can take this feeling away from me. I can see the horrible things in the world, yet, for reasons I cannot explain, I know/believe there is a loving God (very similarly to why I feel more lucky on my birthday but to such a stronger degree).

That's silly and lame. You should base your beliefs (especially important beliefs) on reasons. Anything else just makes you a child who can't cope with reality.

I'm being a bit harsh, sorry about that, but I'm not sure why I should respect your position of just making stuff up. At least some Christians try have reasons to believe.

My faith in God is not based on reason, because I don't need reasons to believe in God.

God is just a figment of your imagination then.

I simply just do. It's hard to explain, unless you have this feeling. My wife is not a Christian by the way.

'Just believing' or having a feeling, isn't a good reason to believe. It's just psychology.

Again, sorry if I'm being harsh, I just don't think your position make sense. I hope you don't hate me.

 

[FireDragon76]

It sounds to me like you are a Calvinist because that's the form of Christianity you have the most contact with.

C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity probably didn't appeal to you because he's not laying out a systematic understanding of the Christian religion, unlike most Calvinists. His approach is more in keeping with the Anglican/Wesleyan tradition. Systematic approaches to theology are not necessarily superior to experiential theologies, however, and they can have significant problems, for instance in apologetics. Merely having sound reasons for belief is not enough, those reasons also have to be appealing to our ordinary experiences.

You emphasize conviction and that's an important thing. Often times nothing is worse than changing horses in midstream. Sometimes it's better to stick with something, even if its not optimal, rather than constantly searching out something better.

 

[SaphireOwl]

The doctrine of irresistible grace was very appealing to me.
It felt somewhat like at the view of universalism, while at the sometime not quite.

A great testimony.

This may help those who have fallen away from God. As well as those who inquire about Irresistible Grace. Irresistible Grace - is it biblical?

God bless and welcome to the community.

 

[dhh712]

That's silly and lame. You should base your beliefs (especially important beliefs) on reasons. Anything else just makes you a child who can't cope with reality.

I'm going to respond to your post since my position for my belief is similar to OC's (though to clarify, I have my reasons for believing though they wouldn't be ones that I could point out as reasonably satisfying to the logistician--they are my own reasons, not ones that are objective) (I also hope I don't offend you as I may come across as harsh). Of course the reasons for belief will be silly and lame to those of the world--the cross is foolishness to the worldly. A person who believes in something that is invisible to all the senses and can never have any way of being objectively proven in the world--and really is only comprehended by methods of "feeling" in a vague way--can only be seen by the worldly as a child who can't cope with "reality". Those (of the world) who say, "Oh, but I respect many Christians" are just being generous and really don't understand Christianity; it will and should appear as complete absurdity to those who haven't had God intervene in their lives.

I'm being a bit harsh, sorry about that, but I'm not sure why I should respect your position of just making stuff up. At least some Christians try have reasons to believe.

It's okay and I don't think you're being harsh, I think you're being honest; some people might consider me harsh and I never mean to be. I'm not looking for your respect though; in fact, coming from the background that I have it is very good for me to not to have the respect of the worldly. I have craved it long enough that if I do, I have a natural tendency to think that I am falling back into the ways of the world again. So, no, that is perfectly fine with me for you to not respect my position of just "making things up" as the worldly can only see it.

God is just a figment of your imagination then.

That is what the worldly psychologists say. It make sense from their viewpoint. What else can something which cannot be ascertained from any of the senses be but something that is made up? Makes perfect sense when I look at it from that point.

'Just believing' or having a feeling, isn't a good reason to believe. It's just

That actually isn't a great reason to believe since it's possible that it can be torn down by other "feelings" that may creep up in a Christians life that might then turn them from their former convictions. I would guess though that ObamaChristian actually had an experience with the holiness of God which was what caused him to become convicted of his sins and confess that he can not stand before God on his own merits and to rather trust in Christ's work as the only way to be in eternal communion with God. Much of that can only be expressed as a "feeling" though since we can't really connect in a "real" way to the spirituality of God since we are still living in the world. It's quite frustrating (to me at least) though I've met a Christian who said that its a great comfort to her to know that God can't be ascertained through any of the five senses (so it pretty much does appear as a bunch of feelings and psychology to the unbeliever).

I would hazard to guess that OC really does have a reason to believe, it's just not going to be any more than the experience he has had with our Lord and Saviour and the change which that has wrought in his life. I would think though that he says he has no "reasons" because he can't give you any that are objective and will make sense to you.

There are lots of Christians though that can demonstrate their belief by logic/apologetics. These are ones who are intellectually blessed by the Lord in such a way. I don't feel that all need to possess this level of rational understanding of our Lord to proclaim to the world that they believe upon Christ for forgiveness of sins though. Lots of times though, the work of the Devil will appear as needling those Christians who, though they may be intelligent enough to know the basics of logic but not a skilled logistician, can't provide a clear logical explanation for their belief. He will tell them they're being led blindly or that their "reasons" aren't good enough or that they're being brain-washed or something along that line.

Thankfully, the Christian knows (or should know) that all this is unimportant in the ultimate matter of possessing saving faith, in whatever way our Lord has graciously provided it to His children. And if all he can say is that it is "just a feeling", well then that is better than having no belief at all; if the Christian who has said this has indeed had a true experience of the holiness of God, then God will sustain this feeling until the end when they can be with the Lord and share in a real way in His holiness. And if it makes me look like a foolish child in the eyes of the worldly for the reasons which I give for my belief, then I am the better for it.

Again, sorry if I'm being harsh, I just don't think your position make sense. I hope you don't hate me.

No hatred taken. I'm aware of the little sense it makes to those of the world.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm going to respond to your post since my position for my belief is similar to OC's (though to clarify, I have my reasons for believing though they wouldn't be ones that I could point out as reasonably satisfying to the logistician--they are my own reasons, not ones that are objective) (I also hope I don't offend you as I may come across as harsh).

Well if you have reasons, even if I'd disagree with, that is respectable. At least that's something we can have a conversation about.

Of course the reasons for belief will be silly and lame to those of the world--the cross is foolishness to the worldly.

Please don't talk like that. It isn't about being worldly.... that's just attempt to denigrate those who disagree with you.

I was a Christian for most of my life, and I never felt the need to be condescending towards atheists. I respected and understood their position that they simply disagreed. Those that are confident in their belief don't need to pretend that those that disagree have something wrong with them.

By the way, I wasn't saying that certain reasons for belief were silly and lame; I was saying that having NO reasons was silly and lame.

The reason I disagree with you isn't because I'm some foolish worldly person who can't comprehend or feel the spiritual. I disagree simply because I disagree on an intellectual level. It isn't because my intellect is corrupt... I could agree with you, but I just don't agree. I could be convinced otherwise (I used to believe, and nothing significant suddenly changed to make me 'worldly').

A person who believes in something that is invisible to all the senses and can never have any way of being objectively proven in the world--and really is only comprehended by methods of "feeling" in a vague way--can only be seen by the worldly as a child who can't cope with "reality". Those (of the world) who say, "Oh, but I respect many Christians" are just being generous and really don't understand Christianity; it will and should appear as complete absurdity to those who haven't had God intervene in their lives.

Actually I get why some people believe in God, and I do understand Christianity. I used to be a Christian. I do respect the position of many Christians, who give reasons for why they believe.

You make me out to be some strange alien, just because I don't believe in God. I'm not. I'm a person, just like who, who happens not to believe in God, just like you don't believe in many magical things.

It's okay and I don't think you're being harsh, I think you're being honest; some people might consider me harsh and I never mean to be. I'm not looking for your respect though; in fact, coming from the background that I have it is very good for me to not to have the respect of the worldly. I have craved it long enough that if I do, I have a natural tendency to think that I am falling back into the ways of the world again. So, no, that is perfectly fine with me for you to not respect my position of just "making things up" as the worldly can only see it.

Well you say you have reasons, so you might not be just making stuff up. But just making stuff up is silly and lame, and many intelligent Christians would agree with me.

That is what the worldly psychologists say. It make sense from their viewpoint. What else can something which cannot be ascertained from any of the senses be but something that is made up? Makes perfect sense when I look at it from that point.

So why do you believe in God?

That actually isn't a great reason to believe since it's possible that it can be torn down by other "feelings" that may creep up in a Christians life that might then turn them from their former convictions. I would guess though that ObamaChristian actually had an experience with the holiness of God which was what caused him to become convicted of his sins and confess that he can not stand before God on his own merits and to rather trust in Christ's work as the only way to be in eternal communion with God. Much of that can only be expressed as a "feeling" though since we can't really connect in a "real" way to the spirituality of God since we are still living in the world. It's quite frustrating (to me at least) though I've met a Christian who said that its a great comfort to her to know that God can't be ascertained through any of the five senses (so it pretty much does appear as a bunch of feelings and psychology to the unbeliever).

Well religious experiences are a reason to believe... they do happen, I just don't think they are from God.

I'd ask why you think religious experiences are a good reason to believe. What's the difference between a religious experience and someone having a weird psychological episode?

(Don't talk about worldly psychology... tell me what your opinion is).

I would hazard to guess that OC really does have a reason to believe, it's just not going to be any more than the experience he has had with our Lord and Saviour and the change which that has wrought in his life. I would think though that he says he has no "reasons" because he can't give you any that are objective and will make sense to you.

Having an experience isn't no reason though. So that would be lying, or at least being loose with the truth.

I understand that people believe in God because they've felt something.

There are lots of Christians though that can demonstrate their belief by logic/apologetics. These are ones who are intellectually blessed by the Lord in such a way. I don't feel that all need to possess this level of rational understanding of our Lord to proclaim to the world that they believe upon Christ for forgiveness of sins though. Lots of times though, the work of the Devil will appear as needling those Christians who, though they may be intelligent enough to know the basics of logic but not a skilled logistician, can't provide a clear logical explanation for their belief. He will tell them they're being led blindly or that their "reasons" aren't good enough or that they're being brain-washed or something along that line.

Or maybe these intelligent Christians aren't being poked by the Devil... maybe they are actually realising that their faith has no justifable foundation.

I used to be one of those apologetics Christians.

Thankfully, the Christian knows (or should know) that all this is unimportant in the ultimate matter of possessing saving faith, in whatever way our Lord has graciously provided it to His children. And if all he can say is that it is "just a feeling", well then that is better than having no belief at all; if the Christian who has said this has indeed had a true experience of the holiness of God, then God will sustain this feeling until the end when they can be with the Lord and share in a real way in His holiness. And if it makes me look like a foolish child in the eyes of the worldly for the reasons which I give for my belief, then I am the better for it.

Or maybe it is really 'just a feeling'.

I wouldn't say you're being like a child to believe based on religious experience. I just don't think you've thought it through fully, while acknowledging that non-religious psychology can give humans feelings.

No hatred taken. I'm aware of the little sense it makes to those of the world.

I disagree, but belief based on religious experience does make sense.

I hope you haven't minded my reply.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is what the worldly psychologists say. It make sense from their viewpoint. What else can something which cannot be ascertained from any of the senses be but something that is made up? Makes perfect sense when I look at it from that point.

Worldly psychologists... are there any other kind? You keep talking about those "of the world", as though you are not yourself of the world. This is a convenient ploy for dismissing anything that doesn't agree with the doctrines of your religion as simply being "worldly".

 

[dhh712]

I hope you haven't minded my reply.

Not at all. You are right, it could be just a feeling; I nor anyone else will ever know in this life. That is where trust in God comes in. There is no justifiable foundation for belief (or faith in God) that can come from some objective reason (though maybe a Christian apologetic can come up with one; I certainly don't know of any except my subjective ones)--the only foundation for belief is faith which God sustains. It may very well be that during some time He will not sustain mine for whatever reason. None of us will never know that unless the time comes.

Please don't talk like that. It isn't about being worldly.... that's just attempt to denigrate those who disagree with you.

I was a Christian for most of my life, and I never felt the need to be condescending towards atheists. I respected and understood their position that they simply disagreed. Those that are confident in their belief don't need to pretend that those that disagree have something wrong with them.

I don't intend to denigrate or condescend, just state a fact (or what is a fact to my worldview--am aware that the unbeliever would not consider it a fact). People who are not regenerated are worldly, they are of the world; there is no getting around it. I don't mean to be harsh or rude or condescending or anything negative, however I do not soften what is a fact but state it as it is known to me.

I wouldn't say you're being like a child to believe based on religious experience. I just don't think you've thought it through fully, while acknowledging that non-religious psychology can give humans feelings.

My background is too rooted in science to not understand that non-religious psychology can give a person the same feelings as someone who has had an actual experience with God. I have thought it through completely.



I believe in God because He gave me that ability. I believe upon God because I trust in Him.