Why would an atheist come to Christ, if not to avoid hell?

[JGG]

Yes, good statement. Am I correct that you believe you have never experienced God?

Yes, I would say that's correct.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes, I would say that's correct.

There's square one again. I can't imagine why you don't have a desire to.

 

[JGG]

There's square one again. I can't imagine why you don't have a desire to.

You ask why I don't have a desire to, for me the question is reversed: Why would I have a desire to? I see no truth in it. I don't seem to need it. I don't benefit from it. I don't see where such a desire would come from.

 

[oi_antz]

You ask why I don't have a desire to, for me the question is reversed: Why would I have a desire to? I see no truth in it. I don't seem to need it. I don't benefit from it. I don't see where such a desire would come from.

Do you think those statements represent the typical atheist you described in the OP?

 

[JGG]

Do you think those statements represent the typical atheist you described in the OP?

I didn't really describe an atheist in the OP. It's more of a hypothetical atheist. However, I think, for a lot of atheists, there's no real drive to find God, at least, not a personal one. Certainly most atheists have a hard time finding truth in God concepts. That is sort of the defining concept of atheism.

 

[oi_antz]

I didn't really describe an atheist in the OP. It's more of a hypothetical atheist. However, I think, for a lot of atheists, there's no real drive to find God, at least, not a personal one. Certainly most atheists have a hard time finding truth in God concepts. That is sort of the defining concept of atheism.

You asked why an atheist would come to Christ. What do you think Christ is? I see you are making a distinction here between a personal God and some other hypothetical God, whatever suffices your imagination I presume. Let me define for you, according to official Christian doctrine, exactly what and who Christ is. This is found in the first four verses of the book of John:

John 1
New International Version (NIV)
The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

John says that Christ is the Word of God made flesh. Since God expresses Himself as Word, then it is only natural that He is a personal God. Why would an atheist not be interested in knowing Him? Why is it any less interesting the concept that God is personal than impersonal? I just don't understand that mindset.

 

[JGG]

You asked why an atheist would come to Christ. What do you think Christ is? I see you are making a distinction here between a personal God and some other hypothetical God, whatever suffices your imagination I presume.

I'm just leaving the door open for pantheists, and those who believe in Spinoza's God who frequently don't make a distinction between these concepts and a lack of God.

Let me define for you, according to official Christian doctrine, exactly what and who Christ is. This is found in the first four verses of the book of John:

John 1
New International Version (NIV)
The Word Became Flesh

Firstly, what does that mean, The Word became flesh? How? Why? What word(s) was it? Was this word spoken, thought, heard, written? Who received this word?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

Couldn't we just say "in the beginning there was God?" It seems there's a lot of redundancy here.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

How were all things made? What does the light of all mankind mean?

John says that Christ is the Word of God made flesh.

Which means what? How was a word made flesh?

Since God expresses Himself as Word, then it is only natural that He is a personal God.

Howso? To whom does God express Himself?

Why would an atheist not be interested in knowing Him?

I'm not going to speak for others, but to me, those words just don't mean anything. It's like poetry made to amaze and bewilder, but not to actually convey any real meaning or information. It doesn't really tell me anything concrete, and simply seems like a bunch of vague assertions.

Why is it any less interesting the concept that God is personal than impersonal? I just don't understand that mindset.

Because a personal God seems like indulging wish fulfillment. It's not specifically that an impersonal God is more interesting, just (slightly) more likely. It doesn't seem likely that an infinite being, who presumably created such an immense universe such as the one we live in, is particularly concerned with lowly beings like us, and whether or not we have sexual intercourse before co-signing a piece of paper endorsed by our government or religious officials.

 

[oi_antz]

Well if I didn't know you better I might have presumed that I'd struck a nerve! Your questions are real and rudimentary, yet very common. As always I can only share my own understanding, but that has never failed to entertain us before has it?

I'm just leaving the door open for pantheists, and those who believe in Spinoza's God who frequently don't make a distinction between these concepts and a lack of God.

Ok.

Firstly, what does that mean, The Word became flesh? How? Why? What word(s) was it? Was this word spoken, thought, heard, written? Who received this word?

Consider this: Word is distinct from word, in that Word is a form of expression, much as "art" is a form of expression, or "music" is. Whereas word is a single entity of Word, much like paint is an entity of art, or notes are an entity of music. In the beginning, God expressed Himself through Word. The book of Genesis tells us that He literally created existence by speaking His will. So to have a will is a power everyone holds, to express that will is not necessarily a power everyone holds. But the bible teaches that God had the power to express His will by Word. Thought is Word, speech is Word, writing is Word and hearing is the act of receiving Word.

Couldn't we just say "in the beginning there was God?" It seems there's a lot of redundancy here.

No there is no redundancy, unless you expect the writer to presume you would already know what He had thought 2,000 years ago.

How were all things made? What does the light of all mankind mean?

Boy, that's tough. If you entertain the idea of an omnipotent God then you will entertain the idea that His jump means jump. I don't know how else to put it. The light of all mankind, hmmm. The other day I mentioned the following verse and someone said that we each have some light within us, but some choose not to follow it. Here's the verse:

John 3:20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.[g]”

Which means what? How was a word made flesh?

"The Word of God" is distinct from "a word". It wasn't just a word that became flesh, it was the entire spiritual embodiment of the expression of God's will that became a living, breathing human being.

Howso? To whom does God express Himself?

According to St Paul, everyone is witness to the expression of God.
Rom 1:20
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

So why are there atheist's and idolators? Read on:

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.

So part of having a healthy relationship with our personal God means to worship Him or at least give Him thanks. Can you explain to me why you, having once been of Christian belief, one day failed to give Him thanks? Was it solely because of the way you were treated by your church?

I'm not going to speak for others, but to me, those words just don't mean anything. It's like poetry made to amaze and bewilder, but not to actually convey any real meaning or information. It doesn't really tell me anything concrete, and simply seems like a bunch of vague assertions.

These are assertions, not so much vague, but with the authority of someone who witnessed God's Word made flesh. You shouldn't dismiss that authority unless you have sufficient authority to do so.

Because a personal God seems like indulging wish fulfillment. It's not specifically that an impersonal God is more interesting, just (slightly) more likely. It doesn't seem likely that an infinite being, who presumably created such an immense universe such as the one we live in, is particularly concerned with lowly beings like us, and whether or not we have sexual intercourse before co-signing a piece of paper endorsed by our government or religious officials.

Well I see it in quite the opposite way. I believe that an artist who conceived and made a work of art would take an immense interest in the health and well-being of it. Since He also has the power to make eternal beings, and He obviously expressed His desire to do so from dust, He must take an interest in the well-being of those creatures too. Of course we are puny not even a speck of dust on a microscope lens in scale of the known universe, but size doesn't matter to God. We are exactly the size He made us because that is what pleased Him. We are His expression of love, corrupted by sin and redeemed by Christ. And if you don't believe that fornication harms His creation, then think what the sanctity of marriage means.

 

[ElijahW]

"If Hell is not eternal and not a place of punishment eternally, then Jesus dying on the cross was in vain. There was no reason for Him to take away the sins of the world.

Why then would an atheist come to Christ if there was no punishment, no penalty for breaking God's law?"

This is a question among many, put forth by a Christian elsewhere on the board.

Discuss...

You believe that establishing Jesus as the King of Kings will usher in a golden age of eternal life and the Resurrection, and don't wish to be on the other side of this life looking like a fool who didn't take the time to figure out what was going on around them and contribute correctly.

Hell not actually existing doesn't mean no accountability or guilt for improper acts, or for failure to do the work you should be doing in this life, just no alternate dimension of suffering to go to.

 

[JGG]

Well if I didn't know you better I might have presumed that I'd struck a nerve! Your questions are real and rudimentary, yet very common. As always I can only share my own understanding, but that has never failed to entertain us before has it?

Ok.

Consider this: Word is distinct from word, in that Word is a form of expression, much as "art" is a form of expression, or "music" is. Whereas word is a single entity of Word, much like paint is an entity of art, or notes are an entity of music. In the beginning, God expressed Himself through Word. The book of Genesis tells us that He literally created existence by speaking His will. So to have a will is a power everyone holds, to express that will is not necessarily a power everyone holds. But the bible teaches that God had the power to express His will by Word. Thought is Word, speech is Word, writing is Word and hearing is the act of receiving Word.

He expresses Himself through Himself to Himself?

No there is no redundancy, unless you expect the writer to presume you would already know what He had thought 2,000 years ago.

I don't presume to think I know what He thinks now. Although the idea that what God "thinks" 2,000 years ago is in anyway different from what He "thinks" now doesn't sit well with me.

Boy, that's tough. If you entertain the idea of an omnipotent God then you will entertain the idea that His jump means jump. I don't know how else to put it. The light of all mankind, hmmm. The other day I mentioned the following verse and someone said that we each have some light within us, but some choose not to follow it. Here's the verse:

Using the same idea, how would God make someone jump? Does God force them to do it? Intimidate? Does He make the ground dip beneath them? Does He take control of their body? How would it happen?

"The Word of God" is distinct from "a word". It wasn't just a word that became flesh, it was the entire spiritual embodiment of the expression of God's will that became a living, breathing human being.

How can a human being be the emodiment of the "spiritual expression of God?"

So why are there atheist's and idolators? Read on:

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.

So part of having a healthy relationship with our personal God means to worship Him or at least give Him thanks. Can you explain to me why you, having once been of Christian belief, one day failed to give Him thanks? Was it solely because of the way you were treated by your church?

No, like I've said before, I didn't see any reason to believe there was a being to give thanks to, or even one that required, or even wanted thanks.

These are assertions, not so much vague, but with the authority of someone who witnessed God's Word made flesh. You shouldn't dismiss that authority unless you have sufficient authority to do so.

Well no, I see no reason to accept that such an authority even exists. I dismiss the claim that there is an authority.

Well I see it in quite the opposite way. I believe that an artist who conceived and made a work of art would take an immense interest in the health and well-being of it.

Why would we assume that God is an "artist?" Again, that's a human characteristic. I made art as a child. All that art is in the trash now. I don't think twice about it.

Since He also has the power to make eternal beings, and He obviously expressed His desire to do so from dust, He must take an interest in the well-being of those creatures too.

I don't see that as a given.

Of course we are puny not even a speck of dust on a microscope lens in scale of the known universe, but size doesn't matter to God. We are exactly the size He made us because that is what pleased Him. We are His expression of love, corrupted by sin and redeemed by Christ. And if you don't believe that fornication harms His creation, then think what the sanctity of marriage means.

Well, what does the sanctity of marriage mean? Don't get me wrong, I'm a widower, and I'm still loyal to my wife, but that's because I love her, not because we married.

 

[JGG]

You believe that establishing Jesus as the King of Kings will usher in a golden age of eternal life and the Resurrection, and don't wish to be on the other side of this life looking like a fool who didn't take the time to figure out what was going on around them and contribute correctly.

Hell not actually existing doesn't mean no accountability or guilt for improper acts, or for failure to do the work you should be doing in this life, just no alternate dimension of suffering to go to.

I don't see that coming to Christ for an eternal reward is any better than to avoid punishment. In either case it's coercion, and dishonest.

 

[oi_antz]

He expresses Himself through Himself to Himself?

Not sure about that, nor how you drew that idea from what I said. What I did say a bit further down is that He expresses Himself to us through His art.

I don't presume to think I know what He thinks now. Although the idea that what God "thinks" 2,000 years ago is in anyway different from what He "thinks" now doesn't sit well with me.

Fair enough, that was my mistake, I accidentally capitalized the "h" in "He". I meant to say that John recorded exactly what he thought was required in order to preserve his own thoughts. Those thoughts being what he had concluded after having experienced life with Jesus in the flesh.

Using the same idea, how would God make someone jump? Does God force them to do it? Intimidate? Does He make the ground dip beneath them? Does He take control of their body? How would it happen?

He's quite creative in that regard, I don't think any two testimonies are identical. Acts 9 and Job 40 might be worth a read.

How can a human being be the emodiment of the "spiritual expression of God?"

This is so fundamental to Christianity I don't know why you ask. Matthew 1:18 describes how it happened.

No, like I've said before, I didn't see any reason to believe there was a being to give thanks to, or even one that required, or even wanted thanks.

So you never identified yourself as Christian? How did I get the impression that you once were?

Well no, I see no reason to accept that such an authority even exists. I dismiss the claim that there is an authority.

Then how do you explain the gospel of John? Is it a lie?

Why would we assume that God is an "artist?" Again, that's a human characteristic. I made art as a child. All that art is in the trash now. I don't think twice about it.

Well His art is not in the trash is it? Art certainly is a human concept but that doesn't mean that God cannot be an artist.

I don't see that as a given.

Perhaps not according to your perspective, but according to the spirit who inspired the bible's authors it is.

Well, what does the sanctity of marriage mean? Don't get me wrong, I'm a widower, and I'm still loyal to my wife, but that's because I love her, not because we married.

Well for one it means that any STD's are shared between yourself and your partner and no-one else. A second reason is what you already mentioned: love. What if the person you love decides that they love someone else? People commit suicide over that. Of course marriage is only the officiation of a commitment but it is the intent of the commitment that is important.

After all this, you have managed to dodge the point. Why? Do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?

 

[JGG]

Not sure about that, nor how you drew that idea from what I said. What I did say a bit further down is that He expresses Himself to us through His art.

Except at the beginning when it was only He and His Word, and He was the Word. To whom was He expressing His Word, being Himself, to?

He's quite creative in that regard

Indeed, He should be infinitely creative, it seems to me. As well as infinitely lacking in creativity.

This is so fundamental to Christianity I don't know why you ask. Matthew 1:18 describes how it happened.

Because I don't know it myself. Religious folks have a tendency to just nod their heads and accept what is given to them as absolute truth, while never really questioning what they're being told. I don't do that anymore.

I know how it happened, what does it mean?

So you never identified yourself as Christian? How did I get the impression that you once were?

I couldn't tell you the exact day, but I imagine it was around the time I started questioning just what I believed God was, and what God did.

Then how do you explain the gospel of John? Is it a lie?

I place no authority at all in the Bible, so I do not take it as truth. It might be a lie, it might be misrepresented, it might be exaggerated, it might never have meant to be taken as literal truth, it might be completely accurate. I just don't believe it so I don't exactly have to explain it away.

Well His art is not in the trash is it? Art certainly is a human concept but that doesn't mean that God cannot be an artist.

My point is that just because I made art doesn't mean I placed value in it. It's in the trash because I discarded it. I Left it. Why do we assume that we weren't discarded? How would things be different?

Perhaps not according to your perspective, but according to the spirit who inspired the bible's authors it is.

Perhaps, but we're not picking at their perspective.

Well for one it means that any STD's are shared between yourself and your partner and no-one else. A second reason is what you already mentioned: love. What if the person you love decides that they love someone else? People commit suicide over that. Of course marriage is only the officiation of a commitment but it is the intent of the commitment that is important.

That's the sanctity of monogamy, not marriage. We are talking about God getting upset if I had sex with my wife before we signed the paper, rather than after.

After all this, you have managed to dodge the point. Why? Do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?

What point did I dodge? I did my best to answer the questions, which it seems to me were answers to my questions.

 

[ElijahW]

I don't see that coming to Christ for an eternal reward is any better than to avoid punishment. In either case it's coercion, and dishonest.

I'm not sure what makes you assume dishonesty or coercion. Everything we do is because we see consequence to our actions so everything would be coercion and dishonest, if the criteria is no reward or avoiding punishment.

 

[JGG]

I'm not sure what makes you assume dishonesty or coercion. Everything we do is because we see consequence to our actions so everything would be coercion and dishonest, if the criteria is no reward or avoiding punishment.

If a mob boss approaches you and says "If you tell the cops that you believe I'm innocent, I'll give you a million dollars, but if you don't I'll kill you." That's coercion, and dishonest. Maybe in the end you do believe the mobster is innocent. Maybe the mobster is innocent. But the reasoning of "I believe the mobster is innocent because he's going to give me a million bucks if I do," is a dishonest reason to believe because the merits of his innocence isn't weighed, it's only about what you get out of it.

 

[ElijahW]

Who is being dishonest in that situation? Are we assuming that the mob boss is lying about what the outcome to me is going to be, or is it me, when I vouch for the mob boss? How does this relate to Christianity? Where is the dishonesty at?

It is cohesion as far as informing me what the outcome to my actions will be. The same thing as when a parent informs a child that they should treat their siblings well because if they don't they will regret it and lose a potential friend. This form of coercion occurs anytime you inform someone of the outcome of their actions, which I think would be the preferred behavior, versus keeping quiet about such matters and I end up getting killed, without knowing I could have received a million dollars.

 

[JGG]

Who is being dishonest in that situation? Are we assuming that the mob boss is lying about what the outcome to me is going to be, or is it me, when I vouch for the mob boss? How does this relate to Christianity? Where is the dishonesty at?

It is cohesion as far as informing me what the outcome to my actions will be. The same thing as when a parent informs a child that they should treat their siblings well because if they don't they will regret it and lose a potential friend. This form of coercion occurs anytime you inform someone of the outcome of their actions, which I think would be the preferred behavior, versus keeping quiet about such matters and I end up getting killed, without knowing I could have received a million dollars.

Right, but none of these reasons are good reasons for belief. To use your example, I should not be treating other people well because of a fear of hell, or the bribe of heaven but because we genuinely care about others. Threats and bribes are used to get people to do something they would not do otherwise. You are telling me that you don't believe in, love, or worship your God on any sort of merit, but because if you do not you will go to hell, and if you do you will be rewarded with eternal life. Neither of these reasons are genuine reasons for belief, they are simply coercion.

Threat and bribes shouldn't have any bearing on whether I believe something or not. The merits on which that belief is based should.

Besides, other religions seem to offer a better deal for belief. If I become a Mormon I can be God. In Islam I get 72 virgins. In Scientology I get special powers.

 

[ElijahW]

Right, but none of these reasons are good reasons for belief. To use your example, I should not be treating other people well because of a fear of hell, or the bribe of heaven but because we genuinely care about others. Threats and bribes are used to get people to do something they would not do otherwise. You are telling me that you don't believe in, love, or worship your God on any sort of merit, but because if you do not you will go to hell, and if you do you will be rewarded with eternal life. Neither of these reasons are genuine reasons for belief, they are simply coercion.

Threat and bribes shouldn't have any bearing on whether I believe something or not. The merits on which that belief is based should.

What belief is involved? I don't believe the mobster is innocent, I just believe he will kill me if I try to testify against him, which I have good reason to believe he would do if he has the power to. Behavior is based on risk reward, which you refer to as threats and bribes. I don't know about merit behind behavior that takes into consideration the consequences of your actions because that is the only course of action for anyone mentally capable to make decisions.

Who is the mob boss in Christianity? If Jesus, I don't see the coercion because he isn't making a deal on his own accord but he is a prophet letting people know the reward and consequence of helping or not helping to establish the kingdom of God. If God, then you are arguing that the laws of nature are a form of eternal threat and bribery.

 

[JGG]

What belief is involved? I don't believe the mobster is innocent, I just believe he will kill me if I try to testify against him, which I have good reason to believe he would do if he has the power to. Behavior is based on risk reward, which you refer to as threats and bribes. I don't know about merit behind behavior that takes into consideration the consequences of your actions because that is the only course of action for anyone mentally capable to make decisions.

Who is the mob boss in Christianity? If Jesus, I don't see the coercion because he isn't making a deal on his own accord but he is a prophet letting people know the reward and consequence of helping or not helping to establish the kingdom of God. If God, then you are arguing that the laws of nature are a form of eternal threat and bribery.

Which one is saying that you will be rewarded with heaven if you believe?

 

[oi_antz]

Except at the beginning when it was only He and His Word, and He was the Word. To whom was He expressing His Word, being Himself, to?

Ah ok, got it. It is interesting to note in Genesis 1: "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;". It seems to imply that in the beginning God did in fact express Himself to Himself through Himself, but the word "us" must have meant He had company. It's difficult to get one's mind around. The bible certainly does promote thought.

Indeed, He should be infinitely creative, it seems to me. As well as infinitely lacking in creativity.

That's an interesting way to think! Do you believe it is true? Or do you think the absence of creativity is nothing?

Because I don't know it myself. Religious folks have a tendency to just nod their heads and accept what is given to them as absolute truth, while never really questioning what they're being told. I don't do that anymore.

Good for you. I hope you question God one of these days.

I know how it happened, what does it mean?

It means that Mary was a virgin who found herself with child. God raised His hand and took the credit. How she became fertilized is beyond me but since I believe God created life I don't believe it is too hard for Him to fertilize her.

I couldn't tell you the exact day, but I imagine it was around the time I started questioning just what I believed God was, and what God did.

So, are you saying that you once believed the ideas that your church had fed you, but you had never actually been grateful to God for anything?

I place no authority at all in the Bible, so I do not take it as truth. It might be a lie, it might be misrepresented, it might be exaggerated, it might never have meant to be taken as literal truth, it might be completely accurate. I just don't believe it so I don't exactly have to explain it away.

Your loss.

My point is that just because I made art doesn't mean I placed value in it. It's in the trash because I discarded it. I Left it. Why do we assume that we weren't discarded? How would things be different?

Well in honesty I can say that the bible does teach this. Romans 9 discusses it.

Perhaps, but we're not picking at their perspective.

Not sure what that means.

That's the sanctity of monogamy, not marriage. We are talking about God getting upset if I had sex with my wife before we signed the paper, rather than after.

I don't see it that way. Perhaps my heart is hardened.

What point did I dodge? I did my best to answer the questions, which it seems to me were answers to my questions.

I am trying to engage you to think of what Christ is. That is important to establish before you can expect to comprehend the answer to your question.