Your perspective: becoming a Christian

[graceandpeace]

In your view as an Episcopalian/Anglican, how does one become a Christian? Further, what is the Gospel & why should anyone believe? How would you relate this to an atheist, or someone of another religion?

Thanks

 

[Liberasit]

In your view as an Episcopalian/Anglican, how does one become a Christian? Further, what is the Gospel & why should anyone believe? How would you relate this to an atheist, or someone of another religion?

Thanks

By deciding to follow Christ rather than the ways of the world.

Why should anyone believe the Gospels? Because they are true.

Through prayer, and by being the hands and feet of Jesus.

 

[MKJ]

In your view as an Episcopalian/Anglican, how does one become a Christian? Further, what is the Gospel & why should anyone believe? How would you relate this to an atheist, or someone of another religion?

Thanks

The question of the reliability of scripture is a big one for many who identify as atheists. Part of the issue is there are a lot of popular myths about it.
I think however there are at least three other issues that sometimes get in the way.

One is that people don't actually have a very clear idea about what sort of evidence or documentation is used by historians more generally. They learn about King John at school, or Australopithecus, but they really have no concept of what scholars consider a convincing sort of evidence.

So when they look at the Bible, they apply criteria far more strict than for other things they think are probably true.

The second is that they have very little idea ho the Bible is supposed to be read, and often misinformed by religious fundamentalists, come to the conclusion that only a moron could fall for that stuff. It is something of a problem of inadequate education - they don't have much understanding of how people in the past understood literature.

And the third is that, as C.S. Lewis points out, they are in many ways post-Christian and post-Platonic. That is, they don't have the right kind of education to allow them to think about the theological issues being presented in a meaningful way. For example, if you don't have a concept of being separated from God, or of God as the Prime Mover, it becomes difficult to move on to what Christianity says about him.

For some personality types this doesn't matter, but for people who are more analytical, it is a serious problem - they need to see that Christianity is intellectually coherent. Lewis suggests that such people almost need to be educated as pagans before they are in a position to look at Christianity. I have found that in conversations that is actually a fairly fruitful approach.

 

[Yardstick]

And the third is that, as C.S. Lewis points out, they are in many ways post-Christian and post-Platonic. That is, they don't have the right kind of education to allow them to think about the theological issues being presented in a meaningful way. For example, if you don't have a concept of being separated from God, or of God as the Prime Mover, it becomes difficult to move on to what Christianity says about him.

So much this. I tried to have a conversation with someone about how God is the only being whose essence is being and that all of creation participates in that essence. The problem was we couldn't even get past the notion of God having an essence...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism
baptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptismbaptism

 

[Sean611]

In your view as an Episcopalian/Anglican, how does one become a Christian?

Baptism.

Further, what is the Gospel & why should anyone believe?

The Gospel is the story of God's love for us, a love so deep that he is willing to sacrifice his own son for our salvation.

How would you relate this to an atheist, or someone of another religion?

Thanks

I always like to share my story with others. It has been a long hard road in my journey to come to Christ. I find that sharing our stories is always a good starting point.

 

[everbecoming2007]

So much this. I tried to have a conversation with someone about how God is the only being whose essence is being and that all of creation participates in that essence. The problem was we couldn't even get past the notion of God having an essence...

Can you elaborate? Do you mean that God is being itself?

 

[Yardstick]

Can you elaborate? Do you mean that God is being itself?

What it really boils down to is that God is the only uncaused being. Existence is part of God's essence in the same way that three sides is part of a triangle's essence.

God is the only being whose essence is existence. He is self-subsisting. All other beings are created and so our very existence is completely dependent on God. We 'participate' in God's existence in the platonic sense.

 

[seeking.IAM]

By deciding to follow Christ rather than the ways of the world.

Why should anyone believe the Gospels? Because they are true.

Through prayer, and by being the hands and feet of Jesus.

I wish I would have said this!

 

[Rurik]

In your view as an Episcopalian/Anglican, how does one become a Christian? Further, what is the Gospel & why should anyone believe? How would you relate this to an atheist, or someone of another religion?

Thanks

You become a Christian by offering your life to God the Father (Romans 12:1-2) through Jesus Christ (John 14:6). The natural response to this is to become a member of the Body of Christ other wise known as the Church (1 Corinthians 12 also Article 19). The best way for us to know that we are signed and sealed in faith by baptism, that we may know that we are grafted to the body of Christ and by the prayer contained in it grow in faith.

The Gospel or good news is that by Christs death and reserection we no longer need to fear our separation from the Father who created us and that by the restoration of the relationship we come to live for what we were created for.

I communicate this by the way I live (hopefully), I try and live my life in such a way that people want to know what it is I have & how I do it. At times I have had the opportunity to share about my relationship with Christ with people who have no or different faith. These conversations is where the fruit is born.

 

[MKJ]

What it really boils down to is that God is the only uncaused being. Existence is part of God's essence in the same way that three sides is part of a triangle's essence.

God is the only being whose essence is existence. He is self-subsisting. All other beings are created and so our very existence is completely dependent on God. We 'participate' in God's existence in the platonic sense.

Yes, that idea of a logical first cause is a hard one for people, the idea of a ground of being. And it isn't that they have to have any knowledge of Greek philosophy or technical terms - such discussions can be had in plain language as well. But most people really haven't any experience of speaking or thinking about them today in the west.

The kinds of instances it would make sense to have such discussions in a more serious way don't happen. Kids learning about history or current events or whatever learn about atrocities, but if they talk in a deep way about what makes things right and wrong, whether good and evil have some objective existence, they are lucky and unusual.

They learn the scientific method as a series of steps, but they don't really talk about how it is that it can give true knowledge, or what assumptions it depends upon to work, or what kinds of knowledge it can't give.

Often times I find people respond best when looking at it from a broadly scientific perspective. Theoretical physics approaches some of the same metaphysical issues, and it is possible for many people to bridge the gap from one to the other.

 

[Yardstick]

I'm curious in what ways you feel theoretical physics are approaching these metaphysical issues. Do you mean in general or do you think there are specific theories that point towards these things?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yes, that idea of a logical first cause is a hard one for people, the idea of a ground of being. And it isn't that they have to have any knowledge of Greek philosophy or technical terms - such discussions can be had in plain language as well. But most people really haven't any experience of speaking or thinking about them today in the west.

The kinds of instances it would make sense to have such discussions in a more serious way don't happen. Kids learning about history or current events or whatever learn about atrocities, but if they talk in a deep way about what makes things right and wrong, whether good and evil have some objective existence, they are lucky and unusual.

Well that's a huge gap in our education system. I intend to send my children to a private military Catholic school, preferably run by Dominicans or Jesuits, where they still teach philosophy.

They learn the scientific method as a series of steps, but they don't really talk about how it is that it can give true knowledge, or what assumptions it depends upon to work, or what kinds of knowledge it can't give.

Often times I find people respond best when looking at it from a broadly scientific perspective. Theoretical physics approaches some of the same metaphysical issues, and it is possible for many people to bridge the gap from one to the other.

Gah! No! Ugh, I hate it when scientists (or lay people with a dangerously moderate amount of scientific knowledge) do that. The behavior of subatomic particles says nothing about human free will!

Both of those, of course, are a result of the same problem as above: a lack of an rigorous philosophical training, combined with a strange belief that philosophy is just "thinking about stuff."

Seriously, I had a good friend tell me that was the definition of philosophy.

 

[Liberasit]

My kids have all studied philosophy at school. Eldest has an A-level in it, next is reading Philosophy at university, next doing Philosophy and Ethics for GCSE. This is far more than I ever had at school (we did "Scripture" but it was not examined).

In light of my DS reading Philosophy, I have tried to gen up on it, but have found this to be this best sleep aid ever. I do persevere though. I am more of a Natural Philosophist, and have built a career in this field.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

My kids have all studied philosophy at school. Eldest has an A-level in it, next is reading Philosophy at university, next doing Philosophy and Ethics for GCSE. This is far more than I ever had at school (we did "Scripture" but it was not examined).

In light of my DS reading Philosophy, I have tried to gen up on it, but have found this to be this best sleep aid ever. I do persevere though. I am more of a Natural Philosophist, and have built a career in this field.

Nice!

 

[Yardstick]

My kids have all studied philosophy at school. Eldest has an A-level in it, next is reading Philosophy at university, next doing Philosophy and Ethics for GCSE. This is far more than I ever had at school (we did "Scripture" but it was not examined).

In light of my DS reading Philosophy, I have tried to gen up on it, but have found this to be this best sleep aid ever. I do persevere though. I am more of a Natural Philosophist, and have built a career in this field.

Very cool, my undergraduate degree is in Philosophy (with a minor in Geology).

 

[Liberasit]

Very cool, my undergraduate degree is in Philosophy (with a minor in Geology).

I hope you are doing well now. I do worry about what career my DS is going to get with his philosophy degree.

 

[Yardstick]

I got a job with the federal gov't before I graduated. I also picked up some IT and web development skills by working tech support at my university. I don't think what I studied has hurt my career at all, despite all the hate on the humanities these days.

 

[MKJ]

I'm curious in what ways you feel theoretical physics are approaching these metaphysical issues. Do you mean in general or do you think there are specific theories that point towards these things?

Well, i wasn''t thinking about specific theories, though that may actually be true. We had a man at our church - he died recently, who was a physicist who became a Christian fairly late in life. At a study group one day he commented that the more he learned about Christianity the more it fit in with what he knew as a physicist. And I actually know quite a few Christian physicists, so it may be that there is something particularly compatible there.

I was thinking more though about the particular quality or type of the questions. The idea of a first cause, for example, is somewhat implicit when people talk about the beginning of the universe. Someone who is having trouble grasping the logic of a non-material first cause will probably be able to get the idea of a material first cause, and you can use that understanding to move on to the former idea. Many people too have a lot of trouble with some of the questions related to time, like free will, God hearing many prayers, or "when" creation happened. That can often be cleared up simply by talking about time as a question of physics and making it clear that God is outside of the physical universe - including time.

Physicists are used to thinking about things mathematically as well, and it is no chance thing that there are a fair number of platonists and idealists among mathematicians. It is very possible to get an in to the sort of mindset of Greek philosophy that way - such people are often quite sympathetic to the view that all things are numbers.

I actually had a conversation with a cousin of mine last night - a geneticist of 60 who is a pretty resolute atheist. We got talking about the difference in approach between describing the motion of the planets with a mathematical statement or by saying they were moved by angels, and I suggested that they were actually similar statements. He thought that the idea of God in relation to angels was very different than in a mathematical description, and I said that there was no reason one couldn't think of God as a sort of mathematical equation that was a self-existent first cause of all things, with angels as sort of secondary causes. And much to my surprise, he said he wouldn't really object to that. It was, however, a totally new idea for him. I'd be surprised if he changes his religious views, but I think it gave him a different way of looking at it.

Gah! No! Ugh, I hate it when scientists (or lay people with a dangerously moderate amount of scientific knowledge) do that. The behavior of subatomic particles says nothing about human free will!

Both of those, of course, are a result of the same problem as above: a lack of an rigorous philosophical training, combined with a strange belief that philosophy is just "thinking about stuff."

Seriously, I had a good friend tell me that was the definition of philosophy.

Yes, that is not a useful definition of philosophy.

But I find that for people who are interested or literate in science, it is often the best way to begin speaking about philosophy. Even if they have no real training in the philosophy of science, they may have a good intuitive sense of what is involved. That leads to all sorts of epistemological questions which are a good beginning for philosophy.

 

[MKJ]

My kids have all studied philosophy at school. Eldest has an A-level in it, next is reading Philosophy at university, next doing Philosophy and Ethics for GCSE. This is far more than I ever had at school (we did "Scripture" but it was not examined).

In light of my DS reading Philosophy, I have tried to gen up on it, but have found this to be this best sleep aid ever. I do persevere though. I am more of a Natural Philosophist, and have built a career in this field.

From what I have seen, the British school system seems to take very much an analytic approach in its philosophy classes. As do the university departments to a large degree. I find it makes me fall asleep as well.

As far as careers - people who like and are good at analytic philosophy often do well in computer programming. More generally, philosophy can be a good basis for things like being a military officer, a priest, or law. It can be very fruitful to combine it with another sort of interest as well, I have a few friends who took it along with sciences and went on to medical school, and it can be a good fit with economics or journalism or political science.