Trying to accept Christ

[Symph]

Hello all. Here's my introduction: I was raised without religion. In my early teens I became interested in the idea of God, and I began attending an evangelical church with one of my friends. I enjoyed it because it felt purposeful, but even there I never felt that I had any direct or true connection to God. My family moved to a different state not long after that, and I lost my fleeting connection to religion, and my interest in it as anything other than an anthropological curiosity.

Long story short: I'm now--twenty five years later, and married with two kids--seeking to cultivate a Christian life. I don't know if I'm trying to "become" a Christian, but I am trying to cultivate faith. I want to believe. I find it incredibly hard to believe, I guess because I have no idea how to even start. I know how to study, and I know how to work, but I don't know how to just "believe." But I have a desire, and I think it's an honest desire, so I will attend church services and see if I can get myself on a path to real faith.

I'm not sure anyone can "just believe" some christians try to act like that's possible but that's not how belief works, you're convinced or you're not. So it sounds like you need to become convinced, the evidence of Jesus rising from the dead is so numerous and heavy and undeniable it's been driving some of the greatest minds insane for centuries. You just have to find the right presentation to get it to sink in "OH... this is LEGITIMATELY rooted in history, it harmonizes perfectly with what we witness in archaeology, AND it predicted some of the most important events in history, and is still having it's predictions proven.." See I can TELL you that, but you have to SEE it. I believed that for years but it wasn't until I saw the right seminary presentation of the historicity of Jesus that it "sunk in" that this is undeniably proven.

I don't have the perfect video to link you to, but I'll throw the best one I can fine in here in case your interested, but even moreso than that? I'd go directly to God. I'd be reeeeally honest, try to dig to the deepest levels of honesty you can find, and say "God I want to believe in you but I can't, please if your'e there reveal yourself to me" and don't stop, it's not a one time is all it takes kind of thing, God likes to see a person come to the realization that he has to be all that matters, and then he likes to see how serious we are about it. He may make you wait, but keep petitioning Him, eventually he'll come to you, rather than you having to figure out Him.

If evolution or science throw you off, I absolutely LOVE this guy.

 

[Dirk1540]

The more I think about it, the more I feel that that these questions lead to the idea of God.

You saying that totally reminds me of the post I just made days ago to someone, I'll copy it over for you...

Yes C.S. Lewis is great! My counter off the top of my head for this post would be my favorite Lewis argument for God, I think it is keen. He argued that creatures are not born with desires unless there is a corresponding way to satisfy those desires. Where there is hunger there is food. Where there is curiosity there is knowledge. Where there is lust there is sex. A duckling wants to swim, there is water, etc. Since the beginning of our recorded history, in every civilization we've ever known about there is this unstoppable obsession for people to have a connection to 'This Thing' outside of this world called God. So there must be a corresponding way to satisfy it or else humans wouldn't be programed with the universal desire...Lewis referred to this desire as an arrow pointing towards the existence of God.

 

[Symph]

You saying that totally reminds me of the post I just made days ago to someone, I'll copy it over for you...

Yes C.S. Lewis is great! My counter off the top of my head for this post would be my favorite Lewis argument for God, I think it is keen. He argued that creatures are not born with desires unless there is a corresponding way to satisfy those desires. Where there is hunger there is food. Where there is curiosity there is knowledge. Where there is lust there is sex. A duckling wants to swim, there is water, etc. Since the beginning of our recorded history, in every civilization we've ever known about there is this unstoppable obsession for people to have a connection to 'This Thing' outside of this world called God. So there must be a corresponding way to satisfy it or else humans wouldn't be programed with the universal desire...Lewis referred to this desire as an arrow pointing towards the existence of God.

I love Lewis so much, he had SUCH a way with words. I often have fantasies of what it would be like if he could come back and debate Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye or one of those guys, hehe but at least we've got Lennox.

 

[Wolfe]

Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye

At least pick a smart one for him to debate.

 

[Symph]

At least pick a smart one for him to debate.

Are there any? Of all of them Dawkins is the one I find the most.... reasonable, but even he sticks to the same dodgy debate tactics as the rest of em.... If Hitchens were still alive he could hold his own, he was probably the hardcore atheist I felt was the most challenging but.... yeah... not a lot of superstars to choose from lol

 

[Wolfe]

Are there any? Of all of them Dawkins is the one I find the most.... reasonable, but even he sticks to the same dodgy debate tactics as the rest of em.... If Hitchens were still alive he could hold his own, he was probably the hardcore atheist I felt was the most challenging but.... yeah... not a lot of superstars to choose from lol

The only one that has made me legitimately question things was Stephen Fry, and even he says a buncha silly crap.

Dawkins and Hitchens however, I was never impressed with, not in the slightest.
Hitchens was tantamount to, God does not exist, and I hate him.
And Dawkins is, I choose to not believe in God, and speak on the subject of God, a subject that I have little to no education on (his words), but still say I have a logical foundation for my argument.

 

[Symph]

The only one that has made me legitimately question things was Stephen Fry, and even he says a buncha silly crap.

Dawkins and Hitchens however, I was never impressed with, not in the slightest.
Hitchens was tantamount to, God does not exist, and I hate him.
And Dawkins is, I choose to not believe in God, and speak on the subject of God, a subject that I have little to no education on (his words), but still say I have a logical foundation for my argument.

Yeah I do feel you on that, I think the reason I felt Hitchens had more to offer is that I never saw him frazzled. He always seemed... intimidating. But the thing is I've see like... 2 of his debates, same with all of them I don't watch video after video, I'll watch a couple of full debates to get a feel for the person and move on.

 

[Wolfe]

Yeah I do feel you on that, I think the reason I felt Hitchens had more to offer is that I never saw him frazzled. He always seemed... intimidating. But the thing is I've see like... 2 of his debates, same with all of them I don't watch video after video, I'll watch a couple of full debates to get a feel for the person and move on.

Both William lane craig, and frank turek, made hitchens take a step back.

 

[Symph]

Both William lane craig, and frank turek, made hitchens take a step back.

hehe if you think of a link let me see it, sounds fun. I gotta say though... Craig gets on my nerves with his smugness. He has a lot of good things to say but I wish he would start saying it without the smug smirk... it's hard for me to watch him because of it.

 

[Wolfe]

hehe if you think of a link let me see it, sounds fun. I gotta say though... Craig gets on my nerves with his smugness. He has a lot of good things to say but I wish he would start saying it without the smug smirk... it's hard for me to watch him because of it.

Actually that smirk is normally the product of a nerve disease he has.

Same with his shaking, and the weird drop in pitch his voice has someting.
However he isn't very kind lol.
You can look it up on youtube, WLC V Hitchens, or Turek V hitchens.

Lennox even debated Dawkins, which was a good debate.

 

[Symph]

Actually that smirk is normally the product of a nerve disease he has.

Same with his shaking, and the weird drop in pitch his voice has someting.
However he isn't very kind lol.
You can look it up on youtube, WLC V Hitchens, or Turek V hitchens.

Lennox even debated Dawkins, which was a good debate.

I saw that one! (and thanks for telling me that about Craig, it helps me understand better) but yeah the lennox dawkins one was epic, I don't care what anyone says, Lennox owned.

 

[Wolfe]

I saw that one! (and thanks for telling me that about Craig, it helps me understand better) but yeah the lennox dawkins one was epic, I don't care what anyone says, Lennox owned.

A funny one is Craig V Krauss, just funny how much Krauss uses ad hominems, and interrupts craig.
So much so that the moderator flat out told Krauss to can it

 

[Symph]

A funny one is Craig V Krauss, just funny how much Krauss uses ad hominems, and interrupts craig.
So much so that the moderator flat out told Krauss to can it

That's like all Kraus can do! He's a child! I think of all of them he's the most embarrassing, just comes off like a kid throwing a tantrum, and the guy has a ph.d gimme a break.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your post. The Tim Keller video was interesting. If you have the time and inclination, I'd be interested to read your thoughts on the following considerations about his video. (If you're busy no worries of course. I'm just putting this out there for discussion.)

Disclaimers:

• This covers only the first part of the video--the lecture--not the Q&A. The post is already quite long.
• There are many good points in the video (in particular his point that secularism gives its followers little resources to cope with suffering) and I enjoyed watching it and thinking about it.
• In what follows I am not trying to be contrarian or nit-picky. I just want to discuss interesting issues that seem to be unresolved.
• I also am not trying to argue against Christianity. I'm just trying to better understand these kinds of issues so that I can develop my Christian faith.

Keller argues that atheism and humanism are logically inconsistent: Belief in a material universe (entailing biological evolution, the ultimate death of the sun, a lack of God or anything supernatural, etc.) should lead people to the conclusion that ultimately, nothing matters. Ultimately, people do not matter, and it does not matter how you live your life. Why then (Keller asks) should we be good? He implies that it is inconsistent to believe in a material universe and to have humanistic values.

Well, here's why: You don't have to believe in God to know that you're happy when people are kind to you, and other people are happy when you're kind to them, and we're all happier when we show kindness to others and receive kindness from others. As humans, our natural intelligence and capacity for language allow us to perceive this.

So I don't see that a belief in God is necessary for being a good person. But is it logically or morally inconsistent to be an atheist and to be a good person?

I don't believe so. A person can believe that something is true without endorsing it. A person can observe and acknowledge the facts of the matter regardless of whether he's pleased, disgusted, ambivalent, or unconcerned about those facts. So, anyone can believe in evolution as the survival of the fittest, and acknowledge that those organinisms that outcompete others will have more offspring, without believing that this phenomenon is good or bad. Acknowledging the truth of something does not necessarily lead a person to any moral conclusion about that thing.

To the objection to Christianity that there can't be only one "true" way to God, i.e. one true religion and many false ones (around 20:00), Keller asks how one could know that there isn't only one true religion. I'd say that no one can know this, of course, but there are some good reasons to doubt it: the archeological and historical evidence for religion shows that as social belief systems they sprang up in all societies around the world once they were sufficiently developed--at least chiefdoms. Each of these societies developed their own religion, often very much different from each other. It seems that in each society the religion served its function and took on its particular traits according to the social conventions of that society. It seems odd then that somehow one of these was the "right" religion and all the others false.

Nice, polished response there, Ruien. I can see that there is more to you than meets the eye.

Welcome to CF!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It's so much more interesting than talking about TV shows or sports teams or other trivialities that make up daily conversation.

I agree. . . if there is truly a substantial answer to your question.

Most people spend their lives intentionally ignoring these issues, but if Christ's tomb weren't empty, if He weren't raised from the dead, then frankly, this conversation is a far greater waste of time than discussing the latest Hollywood offering. If there really is nothing outside of this material existence then suicide is the most logical option. An intellectually honest atheist must come to no other conclusion. Meaning is nowhere to be found in an accidental universe.

I've been an atheist, and I've debated a few. In debates I always bring up the question of meaning, and it's interesting to watch otherwise very logical men explain how there is actually meaning in a world which is nothing more than a cosmic accident. Most people do not have the internal fortitude to face the consequences of their worldview.

May God the Father open the eyes of your heart to see the fullness of His Son. The Son who bore nails through His hands and feet in order to redeem the lost.

Peace,

JJ

 

[Symph]

I agree. . . if there is truly a substantial answer to your question.

Most people spend their lives intentionally ignoring these issues, but if Christ's tomb weren't empty, if He weren't raised from the dead, then frankly, this conversation is a far greater waste of time than discussing the latest Hollywood offering. If there really is nothing outside of this material existence then suicide is the most logical option. An intellectually honest atheist must come to no other conclusion. Meaning is nowhere to be found in an accidental universe.

I've been an atheist, and I've debated a few. In debates I always bring up the question of meaning, and it's interesting to watch otherwise very logical men explain how there is actually meaning in a world which is nothing more than a cosmic accident. Most people do not have the internal fortitude to face the consequences of their worldview.

May God the Father open the eyes of your heart to see the fullness of His Son. The Son who bore nails through His hands and feet in order to redeem the lost.

Peace,

JJ

It's quite obvious you and I have completely different energies and ways of worshiping God, and I'm sure we haven't clashed for the last time, but I really enjoyed reading this post and getting a better feel for you, and I respect you Jimmy, the body of christ needs perspectives like yours.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It's quite obvious you and I have completely different energies and ways of worshiping God, and I'm sure we haven't clashed for the last time, but I really enjoyed reading this post and getting a better feel for you, and I respect you Jimmy, the body of christ needs perspectives like yours.

Our "clashes" are mainly crossed wires. Stick around, and you'll see that. It's very difficult to have a full conversation in this type of venue, so misunderstands abound.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Symph]

Our "clashes" are mainly crossed wires. Stick around, and you'll see that. It's very difficult to have a full conversation in this type of venue, so misunderstands abound.

Thanks for the kind words.

Agreed, text can make things a bit more difficult sometimes, peace!

 

[Ruien]

wow

awesome

there is the religious side of christianity - then there is the personal relationship side of christianity

i recommend you prayerfully read the bible starting in the book of John, and then Acts, and then where ever God leads you - and before you read ask God to lead you and teach you what He wants to say to you

iow the Bible really is a book describing how personal God is with us - starting with Adam and Eve - and how God reveals Himself and His love for us to us

Jesus is the exact representation of God - so take note of how He treated the less fortunate - the sick - the lost - the sinners

as you read and think about what the Bible says about Jesus and us - and ask God to "speak" to you through your prayerful reading - faith will grow like a tiny seed sprouting and then growing into a solid plant

faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God - Romans 10:17

finding God comes by seeking Him with sincerity - Jeremiah 29:13, Deuteronomy 4:29

having a transformed life comes by putting God first and He then adds everything else we need - Matthew 6:33

praying for you my dear friend

God Bless you

Thank you Truthfrees for the suggestions. I read John today--probably the first time I've ever read an entire book of the Bible through in one sitting--and the verses you mentioned. Somehow it seemed worthwhile to just look those up. Anyway, I'm trying to read with an open mind and heart. I can tell it's going to take some commitment on my part to develop a habit of prayerful reading. But one step at a time.

 

[Aino]

Hi, and welcome to cf! Ihope you'll find your way to God and that you'll find some useful resources to cultivate your faith here and elsewhere. I suppose you're somewhat familiar with the Bible, that would be a great place to start. God bless you and your family!