*Matthew enters*

[everythingafter]

After conversion: I interpret the process described above as being directed and guided by the Christian God. Not speaking directly to me, or entering into my thoughts, or altering my thoughts, or anything of that sort. Simply that the reason that I was drawn towards the Christian God was beings He had drawn me to Himself through the process.

I think Welsh's question was how could God have drawn him to yourself without any type of supposed interaction of some kind. It seems like even the "drawing to himself" might have involved some type of interaction. But this leads to another question: How could a god that does not enter your thoughts or does not speak to you directly (not necessarily audibly, of course) possibly have any sway with you. I think we might be having a hard time understanding how such an apparently dissociated god could hold sway with you. I mean, most fervent Christians will say God speaks to them (again, maybe not audibly), but certainly personally. You simply became a Christian because you thought you were being swayed toward him without hearing a word from him? This is frankly what sent me packing the other way. I heard nothing and felt nothing, so in the absence of evidence for the Bible being a trustworthy book, there was no reason to continue in belief.

[Ryft]

To 'become' a Christian, God must accept you. A person becomes a Christian because of what God does, not because of what they do. God cares very little about whether human beings believe that He exists.

A refreshingly brilliant answer. Your accurate understanding of Christian theology just made you my favourite theist here. I really, really look forward to participating alongside you here at these forums. A very hearty welcome to you, sir.

Another ex-atheist Christian. They just keep coming, don't they.

No more remarkable than all the "ex-Christian atheists" here, dude.

[Matthew]

You simply became a Christian because you thought you were being swayed toward him without hearing a word from him?

Have I said this? Nope. If you think I have, then I suggest you read what I have said again.

---

A refreshingly brilliant answer. Your accurate understanding of Christian theology just made you my favourite theist here. I really, really look forward to participating alongside you here at these forums. A very hearty welcome to you, sir.

This brings to mind one of my favourite Lewis quotes:

“Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.”

And there is nothing less original and yet refreshing and brilliant than just saying what Scripture teaches. Many thanks for your warm welcome, and I look forward to our future discussions here.

[fr0d0]

A refreshingly brilliant answer. Your accurate understanding of Christian theology just made you my favourite theist here. I really, really look forward to participating alongside you here at these forums. A very hearty welcome to you, sir.

Here here

[Watson]

A refreshingly brilliant answer. Your accurate understanding of Christian theology just made you my favourite theist here. I really, really look forward to participating alongside you here at these forums. A very hearty welcome to you, sir.

Here here

I third this motion. I also really love the C.S. Lewis quote, Matthew. I'd never heard of it before. Welcoem aboard.

[thesummerqueen]

It's getting disgustingly affectionate in here...

[Matthew]

It's getting disgustingly affectionate in here...

Kum ba yah, anyone?

[Welsh cake]

Prior to conversion: I did not perceive, sense, observe, hear or communicate with God in any way. I did not think that God was interacting with me. I struggled with my own thoughts, and I acknowledged that the direction my thinking was going was not anything to do with my will, and I did not desire to acknowledge the Christian God.

What "thoughts" were these exactly? Please elaborate.

I recognised that I was being drawn towards the Christian God, despite my desires against this. Because of these desires, I was under the impression that something else (perhaps chance, necessity, God's direction, I did not know) was involved other than myself.

You had desires against the Christian God? Did I get that right? How does this make any sense if we're speaking retrospectively, i.e. before your conversion, you supposedly didn't even believe it was god to start with did you not?

First off, let me make clear an important distinction in case of any confusion: the difference between becoming a Christian and being a Christian. We are talking about the former. This process of becoming a Christian (which Jesus calls being "born again" in John 3) is called "regeneration". With respect to regeneration, I take the Reformed view that regeneration is solely the work of God, and that it precedes faith.

Thank you.

[everythingafter]

You simply became a Christian because you thought you were being swayed toward him without hearing a word from him?

Have I said this? Nope. If you think I have, then I suggest you read what I have said again.

---

Well, let the campfire songs begin! Matthew, you said: "I didn't say that I thought God was communicating with me. You have misunderstood me; my saying that 'I did not perceive God' was to clarify that I did not directly sense or interact with God prior to my conversion (at least not to my knowledge)." Thus, you were, as I take it, swayed by circumstances or other factors.

So you deny God sensed or interacted with you yet you accepted him as your savior? I don't get it. Your words: "I did not directly sense or interact with God prior to my conversion." So what would compel you to convert? Further, if you didn't directly or indirectly sense or interact with God during this experience, what compelled you to convert?

[Matthew]

What "thoughts" were these exactly? Please elaborate.

Good question, thank you. I'll try to enumerate the different tensions involved:

1. Nihilism vs. Realism
I was unable to be a consistent nihilist. I had constructed a valueless world with no good or evil, beauty or ugliness, meaning or significance. Yet in the way I lived, I passively campaigned for the existence of these things daily by my attempts to live a good life, my awareness of my moral failings, my arguments against injustice, my desire to make beautiful music. Actively, however, I was unable to acknowledge the reality of these things because my nihilism was derived, not from intuition or observation, but from my commitment to naturalism.

2. Naturalism vs. Reason
I was equally unable to be a consistent naturalist. My naturalism was basically an extrapolation from unguided evolution, viewing the world as a closed system of matter and energy acting on matter and energy. This had the fortunate consequence of ruling out any possibility of God from my world. I very much shared the view of atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel when he said that: "I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

Conflicting with this was (what I would now call) my "epistemology of metaphysics" - or simply, how I thought I knew that naturalism was true. Fundamental to this was Darwin's question: "Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" I found no good counter to this question, and yet my belief in naturalism had to depend on trusting the capacity of my mind to come to true conclusions about metaphysics.

3. My misconceptions about God vs. The Biblical Conception of God
Having being brought to church by my mum as a youngster, I had some knowledge (albeit patchy and distorted) of Christian theology. I had many facile arguments against the Christian God, but when challenged to defend them based on what the Bible said I was, more often than not, completely flummoxed and exposed as simply applying my assumptions.

4. My doubts vs. My doubts about my doubts
I had built up plenty of obstacles in between myself and Christianity, about the existence of God, the accuracy of the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus, the historicity of the Resurrection, and so on. But when I examined the foundations of these doubts with the same vigour as I used to defend them, I found that my arguments did not hold water without assuming the falsity of Christianity. In every area I was begging the question, ultimately stemming from my desires against accepting it and holding on the naturalist, nihilist universe I had made for myself.

I recognised that I was being drawn towards the Christian God, despite my desires against this. Because of these desires, I was under the impression that something else (perhaps chance, necessity, God's direction, I did not know) was involved other than myself.

You had desires against the Christian God? Did I get that right? How does this make any sense if we're speaking retrospectively, i.e. before your conversion, you supposedly didn't even believe it was god to start with did you not?

"This" refers to "being drawn towards the Christian God". If I had desires against the Christian God, Who as you rightly point out I did not believe existed, I would have said "my desires against Him".

---

So what would compel you to convert? Further, if you didn't directly or indirectly sense or interact with God during this experience, what compelled you to convert?

Indeed, this is the very question I asked myself after my conversion. As I did then, I still think the best explanation is the transforming power of God, as I have already said here, with the Biblical witness of other Christian conversions as a precedent. As an atheist, of course, you will have to assume that my conversion was a product of circumstance, chance and other factors outside of my control - but that is the burden you must carry, not me.