What would it take to make you a Christian?

[Robban]

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

That is possible, but first one must find themselves in some kind of tunnel.

 

[dlamberth]

Seriously though, wouldn't you agree that "perfection" and "holiness" in many religions can be symbolized by an infinitely tall ice cream cone that never melts and doesn't make you fat? We have a world where animals have teeth and claws and eat each other, but we imagine a God that just wants to feed us ice cream.

I don't know about that. I think it depends upon ones perspective of God. If one were to experience God as the Life Force of everything, I think that changes your given perspective of what perfection and holiness is. But I do agree with you that many religions pretty much do fit your description.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't know about that. I think it depends upon ones perspective of God. If one were to experience God as the Life Force of everything, I think that changes your given perspective of what perfection and holiness is. But I do agree with you that many religions pretty much do fit your description.

One thing I like about Hinduism is it's inclusion of evil, darkness, destruction, etc. in their God(s). I prefer good things like my loveable cat, but a few nights ago I heard the panicked squeaking of a mouse caught in his teeth. That is the world.

 

[Sanoy]

I went through the same thing going through the church. I started to get very skeptical, not of God, but of the Bible. I'd ask tough questions and get the same garbage answers from everyone one as if they all rehearsed the same answers. I decided I'd leave the church and see if I could live without it. I did for a while. I wish I could say that I had an epiphany that sorted out my skepticism but I didn't. I had a dark night of the soul that nearly left me dead. And there was this voice that shook me, saying "endure", "endure"..."endure". He gave me the strength to go home, and every night I would suffer tremendously. I told my mom to pray for me and she did. I knew every night when she forgot to pray for me because the torment would start again.

Skepticism is very easy, and answers are very hard. So after I recovered I started studying the ANE, philosophy, and Biblical scholarship to handle my own skeptical questions and to be a person in the world that will not cause what happened to me, and probably you as well in the church. You never know when Gods going to meet me you, even when He seems so distant and blocked by obstacles.

@cloudyday2

I came across something that is very much like what I was trying to explain. We have in us this strong intuition to accept the things we experience empirically, or those things that can be demonstrated, or those beliefs that appear logically sound. That's our world, if something is presented for us to believe it better cross this table of empiricism, demonstration, or logic. Anything that doesn't cross that table can't be accepted. But there is this other table, that is more persuasive than the first one. We don't know it exists until the real thing comes across it. When it does everything else waxes into nothing. That table is the personal experience of God.

Here is what I came across. He was the perfect example of the gettier problem. He was as skeptical and rational as he knew how to be. He knew God did not exist because everything he knew about rationality and logic told him God doesn't exist. All it took was a personal experience and his eyes opened to the larger world he could not see before. That is what it's like when God walks in. Your eyes open up to a broader world like a color blind persons first glimpse at a colored world. And He stays with you, testifying to your heart and changing you from the inside. I have seen angels, ghosts, been attacked by demons, and miraculously healed. Nothing is more convincing to me than my personal experience of the presence of God in my life.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Nothing is more convincing to me than my personal experience of the presence of God in my life.

The question then is.

When the same convincing experiences are had by people that have God in their lives, who are called Zoroastrian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or Baha'i, are you convinced they also have a genuine God experience, just as you have?

Regards Tony

 

[cloudyday2]

The question then is.

When the same convincing experiences are had by people that have God in their lives, who are called Zoroastrian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or Baha'i, are you convinced they also have a genuine God expeience, just as you have?

Regards Tony

I would like to see some sort of study of the types of experiences and their frequencies by region and religion. There are probably some differences in religions, but like you suggest there are probably a lot more similarities. The differences are probably going to vary more by culture than by religion, although culture and religion are usually linked.

 

[cloudyday2]

I have seen angels, ghosts, been attacked by demons, and miraculously healed. Nothing is more convincing to me than my personal experience of the presence of God in my life.

I have seen some of those things too, and that is why I tried my best to be a Christian for a few years. I was highly confused and suspicious, but I thought I had some evidence that Christianity was true. Ultimately the problems I saw in Christian theology outweighed the evidence. Later I learned about psychosis and other frailties in the human mind, and I have gradually accepted that explanation.

 

[cloudyday2]

And He stays with you, testifying to your heart and changing you from the inside.

This type of experience is probably the most important for maintaining the faith that you might have originally gained through some exciting moment-in-time type of event. Steady progress over the long term keeps people believing I suspect.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I have seen some of those things too, and that is why I tried my best to be a Christian for a few years. I was highly confused and suspicious, but I thought I had some evidence that Christianity was true. Ultimately the problems I saw in Christian theology outweighed the evidence. Later I learned about psychosis and other frailties in the human mind, and I have gradually accepted that explanation.

I see that we can influence our mind.

I see soul and mind are not part of the body,

I also see that soul and mind is the part of us that contains all the potential, it is everlasting. We are after all, created in Gods Image.

The key is rise above our frailties.

Regards Tony

 

[eremitic]

In my opinion, spirituality should be experiential, not simply something one chooses to believe. One would think, that an all-powerful, omniscient God would be able to embue his precious creation with the ability to know Him directly, rather than by second-hand gospel. That they have a relationship with Him via a genuine spiritual connection, not a book. In fact, isn’t this what most Christians speak of? That one has to know Jesus? How can one know something they have never experienced?

If I experienced some epiphany that left no room for doubt, then yes, I would drop every internal argument with God and never entertain another alternative, be it Buddhist, Hindu, Gospel, or what have you.

 

[Sanoy]

I have seen some of those things too, and that is why I tried my best to be a Christian for a few years. I was highly confused and suspicious, but I thought I had some evidence that Christianity was true. Ultimately the problems I saw in Christian theology outweighed the evidence. Later I learned about psychosis and other frailties in the human mind, and I have gradually accepted that explanation.

I know right. You would think that these things would be enough. You hear these uberskeptics on the forums say "if I only saw God", but then you know what doubt can do. You know what their doubt would do, they would just call it hallucination and demand more. If only they would look inward rather than outward because that is so much stronger. That is where you meet people and begin to know them. You never actually meet them empirically because they are minds, you apprehend them in your personal space. There is something called the principle of credulity. It states that we should believe an experience unless we have a reason not too because if we don't we lose everything in a cascade of doubt. Hallucination really isn't an explanation, it's merely a statement that it didn't actually happen. It doesn't actually explain what happened. Our entire experience of the world is a phenomenon in our head. The world is colorless and meaningless to the groping hands of scientific instruments. If God exists I think He would provide a means for us to perceive spiritual things in a physical way we can comprehend. And it may be that this system is broken in some patients, and it may be abused in LSD users, and it may be perfectly fit in those who are neither broken in mind or abusive of LSD.

 

[Sanoy]

The question then is.

When the same convincing experiences are had by people that have God in their lives, who are called Zoroastrian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or Baha'i, are you convinced they also have a genuine God experience, just as you have?

Regards Tony

I think that God's nature is perceivable by all even without scripture. I think anyone can come to know God by His nature, and build a religion upon that experience or identify His perceived nature through the properties of God's nature incorporated in other religions. The Ugaritic hero, Danel of Ezekiel 14:14 is one such person. Those religions are not themselves paths to anything, whatever good they accomplish they accomplish through the characteristics of God that they have incorporated. This is what Paul reveals in Romans 2:14-16

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

So when the Zoroastrian, unknowingly striving to be like Christ, says "I know God", he knows God through His divine nature which is the first testament of God to mankind, not through his Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Islamism, or Bahaism even though they may formalize his behavior.

 

[cloudyday2]

I know right. You would think that these things would be enough. You hear these uberskeptics on the forums say "if I only saw God", but then you know what doubt can do. You know what their doubt would do, they would just call it hallucination and demand more. If only they would look inward rather than outward because that is so much stronger. That is where you meet people and begin to know them. You never actually meet them empirically because they are minds, you apprehend them in your personal space. There is something called the principle of credulity. It states that we should believe an experience unless we have a reason not too because if we don't we lose everything in a cascade of doubt. Hallucination really isn't an explanation, it's merely a statement that it didn't actually happen. It doesn't actually explain what happened. Our entire experience of the world is a phenomenon in our head. The world is colorless and meaningless to the groping hands of scientific instruments. If God exists I think He would provide a means for us to perceive spiritual things in a physical way we can comprehend. And it may be that this system is broken in some patients, and it may be abused in LSD users, and it may be perfectly fit in those who are neither broken in mind or abusive of LSD.

And that is the key issue I realized that motivated me to start this thread. From about age 20 to 45 I was looking for some sort of personal experience to make me certain enough to be serious about Christianity. Then I thought I had some personal experiences, but after a couple of years I lost faith again. Currently I'm not looking for a personal experience. Believing in orthodox Christianity is like believing in Santa's workshop at the North Pole. It doesn't matter if I see Santa Claus on Christmas Eve, because I know there are no flying reindeer and elves hiding at the North Pole. I suppose anything is theoretically possible, but some things are so far-out that I can't take them seriously. That is how I feel about Christianity now. ... On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if there was something besides psychosis involved in my experiences. That is why I label myself a "generic theist". I think there is a small chance that God might have used Christian symbols such as Jesus to prod me for unknown reasons. ... Other times I think it is more likely that the atheists are correct.

I preferred my original state of uncertainty about Christianity, because it allowed me to truly respect Christians even though I was skeptical. Now I can respect Christians for everything EXCEPT their religious beliefs. I can only pity and empathize with them for believing things that I can't take seriously now. I would rather be respectfully skeptical of Christianity, but I can't go back.

 

[Sanoy]

And that is the key issue I realized that motivated me to start this thread. From about age 20 to 45 I was looking for some sort of personal experience to make me certain enough to be serious about Christianity. Then I thought I had some personal experiences, but after a couple of years I lost faith again. Currently I'm not looking for a personal experience. Believing in orthodox Christianity is like believing in Santa's workshop at the North Pole. It doesn't matter if I see Santa Claus on Christmas Eve, because I know there are no flying reindeer and elves hiding at the North Pole. I suppose anything is theoretically possible, but some things are so far-out that I can't take them seriously. That is how I feel about Christianity now. ... On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if there was something besides psychosis involved in my experiences. That is why I label myself a "generic theist". I think there is a small chance that God might have used Christian symbols such as Jesus to prod me for unknown reasons. ... Other times I think it is more likely that the atheists are correct.

I preferred my original state of uncertainty about Christianity, because it allowed me to truly respect Christians even though I was skeptical. Now I can respect Christians for everything EXCEPT their religious beliefs. I can only pity and empathize with them for believing things that I can't take seriously now. I would rather be respectfully skeptical of Christianity, but I can't go back.

I think there are a few people that have the right heart but just need that Damascus road experience to pull them in the right direction. But most just have to take a leap of trust. I suppose it's like admiring a woman from afar as a prince. If you meet her as a prince of course she will accept you, but if you meet her as a pauper you will know whether she really loves you. God wants us to step forward with interest in our search for Him. I think that is what you would have to do to find Him.

Unlike the skepticism of others on these forums your skepticism seems to be a genuine concern for truth. That's good, but what is truth? Jesus once said that "I am the truth" and if that is correct then He is the foundation of truth and skepticism. How is it that we could acquire the truth, without intellectual faculties with the teleological goal of acquiring the truth. We could perhaps say that Generic God created us and our intellectual faculties, but that says nothing in regards to whether generic God gave us faculties to acquire true statements about reality. Our intellectual faculties need to be teleological, and that end goal needs to be personal and loving if we are to attribute those intellectual capacities with truth acquisition. For our intellectual faculties to be trustworthy they must be given by a trustworthy source.

It seems like the next course is to try to attach properties to generic God that can help you identify him. Starting with our epistemic foundation is a good start, because without it we can't know anything.

 

[cloudyday2]

It seems like the next course is to try to attach properties to generic God that can help you identify him. Starting with our epistemic foundation is a good start, because without it we can't know anything.

My main motivation is to understand my own experiences. I have a variety of hypotheses:
- some might be completely psychological/imaginary
- some might be begin as real and then become amplified by psychology
- some might be a hypothetical generic God
- some might be other hypothetical spiritual beings such as angels, demons, ghosts, etc.
- some might be hypothetical spiritual capabilities of humans such as witchcraft, ESP, etc.

I suppose any set of properties for a generic God is just a wild guess, because the data can be explained in so many ways. Here are some ideas:
- a generic God doesn't care about the specifics of our beliefs (otherwise he wouldn't allow us to be so confused)
- a generic God seems to become personally involved (otherwise we wouldn't have personal experiences of it)
- a generic God seems to love us, but for some reason he can't or won't make the world "good". Maybe our idea of "good" and "evil" is wrong.

That's a start.

 

[Sanoy]

I suppose any set of properties for a generic God is just a wild guess, because the data can be explained in so many ways. Here are some ideas:
- a generic God doesn't care about the specifics of our beliefs (otherwise he wouldn't allow us to be so confused)
- a generic God seems to become personally involved (otherwise we wouldn't have personal experiences of it)
- a generic God seems to love us, but for some reason he can't or won't make the world "good". Maybe our idea of "good" and "evil" is wrong.

That's a start.

Abduction might be helpful when it's hard to eliminate one of the options. That would be to chose which one best explains the experience or belief. So if I have the experience that I can acquire facts about the world then I should select the property that would best explain that ability in a way that reduces doubt. For example if I select the property that generic god doesn't care about me, then that would cast doubt upon my intellectual faculties. So the best explanation for my intellectual faculties will be one in which generic god has the property of caring about us. Choosing the property that generic god doesn't care about us undermines our faculties, which then undermines the selection and the very pursuit of truth itself.

 

[Robban]

Some people I suspect are open if they found some reasons to believe (evidence), and other people have reasons to disbelieve that would trump any evidence.

Would this be the same as converting to Christianity?


In which case it would mean "change".

"What would it take to make you change?"

If there is no turning back?

Something like Vikings when invading,
burning their ships so there was no way of retreat.

 

[cloudyday2]

Would this be the same as converting to Christianity?


In which case it would mean "change".

"What would it take to make you change?"

If there is no turning back?

Something like Vikings when invading,
burning their ships so there was no way of retreat.

I wasn't imagining an irrevocable conversion or change, but I suppose that is what some Christians claim when they say "once saved always saved".

 

[Robban]

I wasn't imagining an irrevocable conversion or change, but I suppose that is what some Christians claim when they say "once saved always saved".

I do not know what they mean.

But in Judaism if someone wants to convert it is discouraged,

Say you want to convert to Judaism, so you go to a Rabbi,
who will tell you "You do not need to, just live righteously."

So you go a second and third time, same answer.

But if you persist, and succeed in a halakh -ic conversion.

You are no longer a convert, Why?

because you did not change,

It is widely thought that you always was a Jew, (Jewish soul)

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Those religions are not themselves paths to anything, whatever good they accomplish they accomplish through the characteristics of God

What have you read of those Faiths? I see All of them are a path to our one God as they All teach of our One God, the same God of the Bible.

Why else would Christ say I have more sheep that are not of this Fold. That is clear that those worshipping God from other faiths were still sheep under the fold of Christ, even if they are yet to see it that way.

Jesus was the Christ "Annointed One". Annointed of the Holy Spirit. God has as many names, as there are virtues and attributes. God has Annointed His Messengers in those many names and the promise is that all those names become one in Christ.

This does not mean you will ever see the body of Jesus again as the flesh amounts to nothing. This means we will become aware that Christ is the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega and as per prophecy, all the names of God merge as the 'Glory of God' at the end of ages.

John11:40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?"

Regards Tony