Should I become a Christian?

[3sigma]

think of it like this, it's like a multiple choice question on a test, if you have no Idea of the answer, just guess randomly, because you can't get it right if you don't answer.

I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying that if we don’t know the answer to some difficult question then we should just assume that God did it and it’s better to assume that than to have no answer at all? If that were the case then no scientific progress would ever have been made.

 

[3sigma]

If you do not mind gambling with your soul, that's your choice.

There you go again, asserting that I have a soul, but failing to supply any evidence to support your assertion. Please provide some sound, objective evidence that I have a soul to lose. I asked you to provide this evidence the first time you made this assertion, but you ignored my request. Now that I think about it, there are several other questions I’ve asked you that you’ve ignored or evaded as well. And several other respondents have also evaded my questions and ignored my requests for evidence. Is this something else I will need to learn to do to become a Christian?

I've never heard of Pascal's Wager.. or whatever you call it. I am not a theologian.

Pascal’s Wager is a standard Christian apologetics tactic that tries to show that we are better off believing that God exists than not believing because we have everything to gain and nothing to lose, which was the gist of your first response in this thread. As I noted then, I have several objections to it and, if you read the information at that link, you will see that there are other criticisms as well.

You want to refute everything that everyone tells you. That makes me think that you are not sincere. You just want to try to shake the faith of others by suggesting that what they have to say is worthless and meaningless.

I believe that you are being led by Satan. He wants to weaken the foundation of Christ. He wants to trick us into doubting God.

I am simply asking people to provide sound, objective evidence to support their assertions, but they often ignore my requests. Would you agree that if I claimed that Santa Claus was real then it would be reasonable to ask me to produce some sound, objective evidence to support that claim? If I failed to produce any sound, objective evidence, but instead told you to read a book of doubtful origin about Santa Claus, would you then consider what I had to say to be worthless and meaningless? How about if I deliberately tricked you into believing that Santa Claus is real by leaving gifts, half-eaten cookies and an empty glass of milk under the Christmas tree—what then? What would you think of me when you finally discovered that I had been lying to you all along?

[FONT=&quot]Are you saying that if I ask people for evidence to support their assertions then you honestly believe I am being led by Satan? Are you serious? You see, this is another problem I have with becoming a Christian. It seems to mean that questioning of any kind is wrong and evil. Again, this weighs heavily on the negative side of the benefit scale.[/FONT]

 

[apsalmistspraise]

There you go again, asserting that I have a soul, but failing to supply any evidence to support your assertion. Please provide some sound, objective evidence that I have a soul to lose. I asked you to provide this evidence the first time you made this assertion, but you ignored my request. Now that I think about it, there are several other questions I’ve asked you that you’ve ignored or evaded as well. And several other respondents have also evaded my questions and ignored my requests for evidence. Is this something else I will need to learn to do to become a Christian?


Pascal’s Wager is a standard Christian apologetics tactic that tries to show that we are better off believing that God exists than not believing because we have everything to gain and nothing to lose, which was the gist of your first response in this thread. As I noted then, I have several objections to it and, if you read the information at that link, you will see that there are other criticisms as well.


I am simply asking people to provide sound, objective evidence to support their assertions, but they often ignore my requests. Would you agree that if I claimed that Santa Claus was real then it would be reasonable to ask me to produce some sound, objective evidence to support that claim? If I failed to produce any sound, objective evidence, but instead told you to read a book of doubtful origin about Santa Claus, would you then consider what I had to say to be worthless and meaningless? How about if I deliberately tricked you into believing that Santa Claus is real by leaving gifts, half-eaten cookies and an empty glass of milk under the Christmas tree—what then? What would you think of me when you finally discovered that I had been lying to you all along?

[FONT=&quot]Are you saying that if I ask people for evidence to support their assertions then you honestly believe I am being led by Satan? Are you serious? You see, this is another problem I have with becoming a Christian. It seems to mean that questioning of any kind is wrong and evil. Again, this weighs heavily on the negative side of the benefit scale.[/FONT]

heheheh actually, if you wanted to say that Santa was real, i would say that at one point he was but not in the way many think he was or is. and then when you say "no, he is real NOW" I would say "Okay, to you he is real. If you believe he is, then for you , he is." granted, for me, i would not bet eternity on it, but we all have things we bet on ;o)

OH YEAH AND I do not believe you are led of Satan, to make me think negatively against my God. I truly believe people are afraid for their faith to be tested. if they are afraid of hearing an atheists view point on why or how he thinks how he thinks, then they should probably not be answering your questions but :that is just IMO. :O)

 

[Digit]

Hi 3sigma ,

Apologies for not replying. I forgot about this for a few days.

Ok, so you seem rather occupied with the evidence of things. We both know we aren't going to find evidence of God, our soul and so forth, that is testable by scientific methods. So the one thing we DO have, which we can see if it speaks truly or not, is the Bible.

So, if I could provide some evidence of the claims in the Bible, that we know to be true, would you accept them?

Digit

 

[3sigma]

Ok, so you seem rather occupied with the evidence of things. We both know we aren't going to find evidence of God, our soul and so forth, that is testable by scientific methods. So the one thing we DO have, which we can see if it speaks truly or not, is the Bible.

So, if I could provide some evidence of the claims in the Bible, that we know to be true, would you accept them?

I am as concerned with evidence as any reasonable person would be. No reasonable person believes claims without some sound, objective evidence supporting them. Zero evidence should result in zero belief. So when you say that there is no evidence for “God, our soul and so forth” I tend to withhold my belief in them, as any reasonable person would.

[FONT=&quot]If you can provide some sound, objective evidence to support some claims in the Bible then I will probably accept them. Of course, showing that some things in the Bible are true doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is true. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle mentions many real people and places in the Sherlock Holmes stories, but that doesn’t mean that Sherlock Holmes was real. Each claim needs to be individually supported by sound, objective evidence.[/FONT]

 

[Digit]

I am as concerned with evidence as any reasonable person would be. No reasonable person believes claims without some sound, objective evidence supporting them. Zero evidence should result in zero belief. So when you say that there is no evidence for “God, our soul and so forth” I tend to withhold my belief in them, as any reasonable person would.

[FONT=&quot]If you can provide some sound, objective evidence to support some claims in the Bible then I will probably accept them. Of course, showing that some things in the Bible are true doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is true. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle mentions many real people and places in the Sherlock Holmes stories, but that doesn’t mean that Sherlock Holmes was real. Each claim needs to be individually supported by sound, objective evidence.[/FONT]

Hi 3sigma,

Ever heard the expression, a man with experience, will never be at the mercy of a man with an argument. You believe in arguments, or to use a better word - theories, supported by evidence. I, on the other hand, have experience. I once had arguments, to the degree that I was absolutely positive nothing could change my opinion - yet here we stand.

I don't know why you place so much faith in science, afterall, it was once a scientific fact, that the sun orbited the Earth. What would happen if you made some important life-decision based on the solid, objective evidence back then (of the sun rising, moving through the sky and setting) when it was false?

In a similar circumstance, we are unable to prove the immaterial, invisible, intangible - yet we know that the known universe, the physical, the visible, the tangible, has not always existed. Time, space and matter were at some point created - this is what the Big Bang theory says anyhow, so why, based on this, are you so certain the Bible is fictional? Why would someone write a book like that? Why would they risk persecution for it, death? How would it be done to hide the lie from prying eyes all this time. Really, there are so many questions that arise from that line of thought, as to make it totally redundant to start down that road to begin with.

So I hope you can see how relying on sound objective evidence, is not always what it appears, in addition, I hope you can see that our reality as it stands now, is perhaps not an accurate representation of reality as it really is. Just like the reality of people living many years ago, when they thought the Earth the center of the universe and the sun orbiting it, was not a valid view of the ultimate reality, or truth.

To get to the Bible. We have a book, one that is comprised of many numerous accounts of our history as a people, and of one man in particular. I think the two good pages if you have the time to look at are:

One.
Two.

To be honest though, this is the wrong way to approach the Bible. God cares not about our understanding of the workings of His creation. The very first passage in Genesis tells us this, as it talks about how God is creating everything, and in a completely offhanded and throw-away manner, the author says, "oh, and He also created the stars."

Genesis 1:16
"God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

Don't you think if God put any importance on our understandings of these things, He would have gone into more detail abou them? Yet, something like how a man treats his wife, gets pages and pages of attention, and here you are focusing on what evidence there is. I'm willing to bet now, that you won't accept a large majority of the points in those links.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[seekHisMercy]

Like others, I have never heard of Pascal's wager. I don't need to prove God to anyone, the bible tells us not to convert, thats His job. I will however offer friendly input.

When you say

A translation of a translation who knows how many times removed of a book of myths and legends is not in any sense sound, objective evidence for anything other than the fact that some people have vivid imaginations.

I think you need research that better. Most Bible publishers are taking the latest translation provided by biblical scholars who continue to pour over the ancient text. Subsequently, science is on the move proving a little more each day that once "myths" are in fact real, exactly as the bible described. Archaeologist are digging up the truth now in Israel and Palestine and it's well worth watching. In fact the tomb of the Apostle Paul was dug up in Rome, excavation started in 2002 and was completed 2006.

 

[3sigma]

Ever heard the expression, a man with experience, will never be at the mercy of a man with an argument.

Can’t say that I have. Is that something they teach Christians to give them confidence when you are faced with an atheist sceptic asking questions and requesting evidence to support your claims? It sounds like something a Christian apologist would say because it is telling you to rely on subjective experiences rather than objective evidence. In other words, it is telling you to believe what is probably imaginary rather than what is real.

Don't you think if God put any importance on our understandings of these things, He would have gone into more detail abou them?

Are you telling me that you think God actually wrote the Bible? Isn’t it just possible that the men who wrote the Bible didn’t go into detail about the formation of stars because they didn’t have the faintest clue how they actually formed?

I'm willing to bet now, that you won't accept a large majority of the points in those links.

Now why would you think that? Is it because you can see how incredibly weak the arguments are and how strained and tenuous the connections they try to make between the Bible and any semblance of scientific thought? You will need to do far better than that if you wish to convince any reasonable person that anything in the Bible is real.

[FONT=&quot]Again, the important point to remember is just because some trivial claims in the Bible may be real, it doesn’t mean that “God, our soul and so forth” are real. In fact, you’ve already admitted that there is no sound, objective evidence that these things are real so I’m puzzled why you are even pursuing this path.[/FONT]

 

[3sigma]

I think you need research that better. Most Bible publishers are taking the latest translation provided by biblical scholars who continue to pour over the ancient text.

I was just going by what you said.

Crack open the NASB translation of the KJV Bible and read the Gospel starting with Matthew.

You are talking here about a translation of a translation who knows how many times removed from the original texts. Granted, there may be other translations now that are closer to the original texts, but we are still talking about a book of myths and legends after all.

However, these discussions are straying from my original question. Can you give me a positive benefit to my becoming a Christian and support your argument with sound, objective evidence?

 

[apsalmistspraise]

Can’t say that I have. Is that something they teach Christians to give them confidence when you are faced with an atheist sceptic asking questions and requesting evidence to support your claims? It sounds like something a Christian apologist would say because it is telling you to rely on subjective experiences rather than objective evidence. In other words, it is telling you to believe what is probably imaginary rather than what is real.


Are you telling me that you think God actually wrote the Bible? Isn’t it just possible that the men who wrote the Bible didn’t go into detail about the formation of stars because they didn’t have the faintest clue how they actually formed?


Now why would you think that? Is it because you can see how incredibly weak the arguments are and how strained and tenuous the connections they try to make between the Bible and any semblance of scientific thought? You will need to do far better than that if you wish to convince any reasonable person that anything in the Bible is real.

[FONT=&quot]Again, the important point to remember is just because some trivial claims in the Bible may be real, it doesn’t mean that “God, our soul and so forth” are real. In fact, you’ve already admitted that there is no sound, objective evidence that these things are real so I’m puzzled why you are even pursuing this path.[/FONT]

no, it is because there is always a discouragement that comes to someone who does believe with the faith of a child and they see that though they believe, not every one will. But see this I know to be the case, you cannot 'help' someone believe without hard facts. and believe as a word is infact the very oposite of fact. fact is seeing proof right infront of you that you cannot deny and faith or belief is just hanging on hope. a hope which one only has when they come to a realization that they need something more than what they have. and you, my friend, do not think you need anything. you think you have all you need unless it is proven with facts that there is more. There is no way for any of US to prove that you need more, or that in fact there is more, except through our own experiences. lol and that my friend, is why Christianity is 'experienced' and not just spoken of. My experience was and is still the greatest 'idea, concept, reality in my life! I live it, breath it, walk in it and know i will wake one day on 'the other side' with my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. This is something I know beyond a shadow of a doubt. and you or anyone can try to shake it by facts you displa or reasoning about reality but for me, and may others i may add, we already see in a different reality then you. that is why we believe it. we are in it, experiencing something different than you. Just as you experience the 'logic' of the known universe as you see it, not being able to hold or house a loving savior, we 'believe' not out of that logic that He is greater than all things and helps us endure in all things. Experiencing Life has always been better for me than sitting back and trying to reason as to why a star hangs or how it really doesnt twinkle. What a marvelous creation that I stand in awe of the Creator instead of the created! This is why he doesn't think that you will take value in the links he shared with you. Not as you said:Is it because you can see how incredibly weak the arguments are and how strained and tenuous the connections they try to make between the Bible and any semblance of scientific thought?

:O)

 

[Digit]

Can’t say that I have. Is that something they teach Christians to give them confidence when you are faced with an atheist sceptic asking questions and requesting evidence to support your claims? It sounds like something a Christian apologist would say because it is telling you to rely on subjective experiences rather than objective evidence. In other words, it is telling you to believe what is probably imaginary rather than what is real.

You are still clinging to those terms again, objective evidence. You haven't addressed how completely flawed objective evidence was when it was scientific fact that the sun revolved around the world and you haven't given any indication that you understand how reality can differ from person to person AND from timeframe to timeframe. Your objective evidence to me, seems to be the security blanket of the doubtful and those who cling to disbelief. You keep repeating it ad nauseum like a broken record.

The saying (experience > argument) is true in every area. That's why veterans in war are sought after and held more highly than rookies. The rookies know the arguments, the veterans have the experience, nothing will ever overcome that. Apply it to any situation, and you will always favour those with experience, over those with arguments. It's not something they teach Christians, in fact, who is this 'they' you are talking about, it seems you are wrapped up in conspiracy-land at the moment.

Are you telling me that you think God actually wrote the Bible?

The word theopneustic literally means from the mouth of God, we have translated it to a more understandable term, inspired.

Isn’t it just possible that the men who wrote the Bible didn’t go into detail about the formation of stars because they didn’t have the faintest clue how they actually formed?

Many things are possible, it's whether they are probable or not that interests me, and in this case no, absolutely not. There is a pattern throughout the entirety of the Bible, where the workings and mechanics of things which were well within the limits of mankind to understand, are omitted. Yet the importance is always placed on how people we treated, what people feel, why they do and so on. Do they go into detail about how to grow crops? How to make homes? Marriage ceremony? Seasons? I could list endless things, and none of which are detailed... you need to understand this, that the Bible, is not a science book. We have our own scientists who are happily labouring away on the quest for knowledge, and God places little importance on that - we know this, because of what is written about God, but people who interacted with Him in person.

Now why would you think that?

Because the more you post, the more you seem insincere. You come here, like many do, with presuppositions of things and no desire to know anything different.

Is it because you can see how incredibly weak the arguments are and how strained and tenuous the connections they try to make between the Bible and any semblance of scientific thought?

No, it's because the Bible does not teach science, and it's because you are but another mind closed to anything other than what you have come to know already. You are asking us to link words written thousands of years ago, words that often have no direct English translation, to words that we use today. Should the Bible instead say that the sky is blue, except to 3sigma who will call the sky 'zort' in the year 2008? You absolutely cannot take words written so many generations ago and directly translate them with the same meaning that they would have conveyed back then, today.

You will need to do far better than that if you wish to convince any reasonable person that anything in the Bible is real.

Actually, it appears that (as you pointed out already) most people already believe it. So either we are all unreasonable, and you are in the minority of reasonable people, or (the more probable theory) is that you yourself are unreasonable in your requests and also, you do not understand why. For instance, let us use an example - would you, as a human, think it a good idea that God should reveal Himself in no uncertain terms to every soul on Earth, or, lets replace soul with person instead. To every tangible, visible and living person on Earth?

[FONT=&quot]Again, the important point to remember is just because some trivial claims in the Bible may be real, it doesn’t mean that “God, our soul and so forth” are real.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] So, when you read a book, that claims to be a historical record of our origins and Creator, and begin to match up parts of it to actual events in our history, where external sources talk of the people in that book and where the laws and rules and morals of it, are the very foundation of coutries today, you still doubt parts of it? To me that seems like you want to doubt it, rather than believe it and if that's the case, then I think Bertrand Russell said it best (he was no friend of Christianity btw):[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."

It's odd because Christians are always told they are closed-minded, yet I don't think anyone understands (other than another Christian) what it actually took for some of us to break that initial pattern, of accepting even the smallest things, just because they afford us a reason to continue the lives we enjoyed.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In fact, you’ve already admitted that there is no sound, objective evidence that these things are real so I’m puzzled why you are even pursuing this path.[/FONT]

There is as much evidence for them as there is say, my love for my wife. How do you test something that is unseen and intangible? How does she know it's real as you say? Eventually, you will (in fact probably already have) taken something on faith. With that small step, you've undermined the very argument you have for your current disbelief.

Digit

 

[Sunshine11]

Should I become a Christian?


[FONT=&quot]Is there some net benefit to be gained, either for me or for society, by my becoming a Christian that could not be gained by my remaining an atheist? Bear in mind that I am sceptical by nature, which probably explains my atheism, so please provide some sound, objective evidence to show that whatever benefit you propose is real.[/FONT]

Society does not play a role in an individual choice which is what faith in something is. So society is out of the equation really.

One could argue that society does better when a person has a moral code they live by...which people typically get from their faith....but the main issue is the individual.

The question I have is this....why are you an atheist?

If God is not real...then you loose nothing. But if God is real....and the Bible is true...you stand to loose much much more than you could ever imagine possible.

(Your soul burning for eternity in hell fire).

Imagine your life here on Earth...

Then imagine a burning lake of fire and their is no chance you will ever get out. There is much pain and torment and no chance of happiness, or joy or peace and no chance of ever ever experiencing life like you knew it. Total darkness and utter despair....never ending...

Would you play Russian roulette with a handgun?

Do you want to continue taking a chance that the Bible and all this God stuff is wrong?

What if we are right and you die tonight or tomarrow or next week or a year from now and you never decide to give God a try?

Then all those awful things I mentioned above would come true.

So I guess your options are...do nothing and take a chance that we are wrong (huge risk involved)...

....or talk to Jesus and ask Him to help you to believe and to forgive your unbelief and your sins and see what happens (no risk involved).

Hope that helps. And I pray you make the right decision.

Sunshine

 

[Kelly]

Can you give me a positive benefit to my becoming a Christian and support your argument with sound, objective evidence?

The Holy Spirit, which you receive upon accepting Christ as your savior and Lord, will produce the fruit of the spirit within you, if you allow it to. These traits are: unconditional love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

The display of the fruits will undoubtedly improve the lives of those around you in your day to day life.

The only evidence I can give you is the change He's made in my life. I'm a better person than I was 5 years ago, when I didn't know Him.

Other than that, you seem like a smart person and (if only through debate) have heard the Good News (that is, the saving power of Christ). If you choose not to act upon it, that's up to you.

 

[apsalmistspraise]

The Holy Spirit, which you receive upon accepting Christ as your savior and Lord, will produce the fruit of the spirit within you, if you allow it to. These traits are: unconditional love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

The display of the fruits will undoubtedly improve the lives of those around you in your day to day life.

The only evidence I can give you is the change He's made in my life. I'm a better person than I was 5 years ago, when I didn't know Him.

Other than that, you seem like a smart person and (if only through debate) have heard the Good News (that is, the saving power of Christ). If you choose not to act upon it, that's up to you.

and see, this is that experience thing i mentioned earlier :O) i love experiences.

 

[3sigma]

You haven't addressed how completely flawed objective evidence was when it was scientific fact that the sun revolved around the world and you haven't given any indication that you understand how reality can differ from person to person AND from timeframe to timeframe.

Science does the best it can to understand the real world based on the facts it has at hand at the time. Until Galileo observed the phases of Venus in 1610 with his newly invented telescope, there wasn’t enough objective evidence to show that the Sun was the centre of the Solar System. Prior to that observation, all people had to go on were the crude observations they could make with the naked eye, which weren’t good enough to falsify the Ptolemaic system. When Galileo demonstrated that Venus orbits the Sun, science accepted that fact. The Christians of the time, however, did not. The notion that the Earth was not the centre of the universe contradicted their interpretation of the scriptures and so was rejected. Many Christians still reject scientific facts and theories to this day.

Reality doesn’t differ from person to person. Reality is independent of what people think. What differs from person to person is their perception of reality or what they imagine reality to be.

…you need to understand this, that the Bible, is not a science book.

But you just tried to convince me that the Bible was full of cutting edge science by posting those two links. Please make up your mind.

Because the more you post, the more you seem insincere.

Insincere about what? I sought an answer to the question, “Should I become a Christian?” and the more you and others post, the more convinced I become that I should not.

You absolutely cannot take words written so many generations ago and directly translate them with the same meaning that they would have conveyed back then, today.

So then how do you make sense of what the Bible says? How do you know the translation you are reading and interpreting is correct? Is your interpretation different from that of others in the same way your sense of reality seems to differ from others?

Actually, it appears that (as you pointed out already) most people already believe it. So either we are all unreasonable, and you are in the minority of reasonable people, or (the more probable theory) is that you yourself are unreasonable in your requests and also, you do not understand why.

Or it could be simply that most people are credulous.

So, when you read a book, that claims to be a historical record of our origins and Creator, and begin to match up parts of it to actual events in our history, where external sources talk of the people in that book and where the laws and rules and morals of it, are the very foundation of coutries today, you still doubt parts of it?

I certainly doubt the parts that are plainly contradicted by sound, objective evidence and I also doubt the parts that are fanciful and incredible and yet lack a single shred of sound, objective evidence to support them.

It's odd because Christians are always told they are closed-minded, yet I don't think anyone understands (other than another Christian) what it actually took for some of us to break that initial pattern, of accepting even the smallest things, just because they afford us a reason to continue the lives we enjoyed.

Actually, I think Christians are so open-minded that they will believe just about anything.

There is as much evidence for them as there is say, my love for my wife. How do you test something that is unseen and intangible? How does she know it's real as you say?

She thinks your love for her is real because she sees evidence in your words and actions towards her. Granted, if this evidence is purely subjective on her part then she could be deluding herself into thinking that you love her when, in reality, you don’t. It has been known to happen before. However, if other unbiased and independent observers also see evidence of your love for your wife in your words and actions then the evidence is a little more objective. You could be deceiving everyone into believing that you love your wife, but until we see evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that you do because we do have some objective evidence of that.

[FONT=&quot]The problem is that there is no sound, objective evidence that God is real and you’ve acknowledged that fact.[/FONT]

 

[3sigma]

The question I have is this....why are you an atheist?

I don’t believe that the Christian God or any other god is real because there is not a single shred of sound, objective evidence to show that they are. It’s simple really.

[FONT=&quot]As for the rest of your post, you are just repeating the Pascal’s Wager argument, to which I have already stated my objections and posted a link to further information. You are trying to convince me that your loving God is real by telling me that he will send my soul to burn in hell for all eternity. That’s quite charming, but until you can show me some sound, objective evidence that any of those things is real, I think I will remain an atheist.[/FONT]

 

[3sigma]

The saying (experience > argument) is true in every area.

The only evidence I can give you is the change He's made in my life.

and see, this is that experience thing i mentioned earlier :O) i love experiences.

[FONT=&quot]It seems that a good many people here base their belief that God is real on purely subjective information such as personal experiences, which prompts me to ask another question, but I’ll do that in another thread.[/FONT]

 

[Sunshine11]

Your choice Sigma.

But as I said....you loose nothing by accepting Him.

You loose BIG TIME if we are right!

Thats your problem...not mine!

I don't have to convince you of anything.

Nobody does.

It's your choice whether you will talk to God yourself.

Noboby...no person can save you.

Nobody can reveal God to you.

Only God can to those that seek Him.

It's ALL on your shoulders.

Don't try to put this on Christians. It's not their problem.

People can tell you about God and what He has done for their life....but ultimately the choice is yours.

Take care. I hope you don't die soon.

Sunshine



KELLY....

I think you need to read his opening post again. The man is an atheist. He has not received the spirit of God.

 

[Kelly]

KELLY....

I think you need to read his opening post again. The man is an atheist. He has not received the spirit of God.

I know, he asked what was the benefit to becoming Christian. I presented one, everlasting life cannot be proven through evidence, but the fruits of the spirit are easily evident in someone's life, right?

Is there some net benefit to be gained, either for me or for society, by my becoming a Christian that could not be gained by my remaining an atheist?

A net benefit to society are the results of a change of attitude, behavior, action as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[seekHisMercy]

3sigma

I have been following this thread best I can. I find that you at least want answers where many if not most atheist are in the business of persecution. I had to think of what scripture or "evidence" there is that would be convincing to you. But I realized that since you don't believe, God probably isn't going to show you. For a Christian the evidence is there everyday. There isn't a lick of question for me.

When Jesus said on the cross "it is done". It was probably an ambiguous meaning. Some scholars believe that God is done speaking directly to people like he did with Moses. Because the bible says ball is rolling, the end times and 2nd coming of Christ is all that we wait for now. Thats not saying people don't hear the voice of God, they have. That in itself is worth googling.

In the OT, the book of Jeremiah says in Jer 29:13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

This is perhaps why Christians like myself have no doubts, there is no question or science to be applied. You are now living in super natural, experiences that just can't be explained as anything but the work of God.

You have to remember. The Jews and the Pharisees never said Jesus DIDN'T walk on water, turn water into wine, raise the dead or heal. That wasn't disputed. They doubted he was the chosen King of The Jews.

This is why I suggest (if you don't mind) keep an open heart and really read the scriptures. My duty is to inform you, or "witness" to you, not to convert you. Atheist world wide have seen their burning bush and never looked back. I might be wrong but I'm fairly confident that in scriptures it says God chooses you and once he starts good work hes intends to finish it.