Atheists who become Christians

[Nope]

...
Ann Druyan the wife of Carl Sagan worte this after his death. I think it's beautiful but at the same time sad. Sad that two well educated people could not see any farther then the end of their noses, they had NO hope, no vision.

I suspect death of yourself or a loved one is painful regardless of your belief or disbelief in an afterlife.

I'm not certain why they had no hope or vision.

Most of my hopes are based on reality. For example, I hope that my family likes their Christmas gifts. That hope is based on the fact that I bought them Christmas gifts-a reality. It would be absurd for me to hope that they like gifts that I wanted to magically appear in my house with no effort from me to go get them. That is the difference between my form of hope and a religious person's. I hope for things that have a reasonable-even if it is slight-chance of coming true.

[strawdawg]

I suspect death of yourself or a loved one is painful regardless of your belief or disbelief in an afterlife.

I'm not certain why they had no hope or vision.

Most of my hopes are based on reality. For example, I hope that my family likes their Christmas gifts. That hope is based on the fact that I bought them Christmas gifts-a reality. It would be absurd for me to hope that they like gifts that I wanted to magically appear in my house with no effort from me to go get them. That is the difference between my form of hope and a religious person's. I hope for things that have a reasonable-even if it is slight-chance of coming true.

Perception alters reality.

[Drich]

Christians are typically morons. Exhibit A:

How do we know who wrote 2 Timothy?



Hmmmm how could we possibly know who wrote 2 Timothy???

Maybe if we had some clue or some signature of some kind....

2Tim 1
Greeting
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ[a] by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, a beloved son:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Oh, but this would not be enough for you and a wiki page?


Sorry sport if you want to challenge what is in the book itself your going to have to bring more than your personal self doubt about this epistles authorship.

Hey, here's a new word for you:

"PSEUDEPIGRAPHY"

Now, get ready to adjust your eyes, this may sting a bit. I give you...

FACTS:

1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):
Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistlesl are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 379-80):
. . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.
In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):
The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.
And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

There is nothing new here other than the idea that the writtings are not authorized by Paul.

Paul was a Pharisee, as such would have dictated the vast majority of his writtings to a scribe in his normal day to day efforts. This is Especially true when he was in prision. (Where writting materials would have been hard for him to get let alone distributed) Which was the case of second Timothy. There are only instances where letter/greeting Paul Himself says he writes by his own hand.

We know this because Paul makes it known those in those specific occasion (2thess 3:17, 1cor 16:21, col 4:18.) these instances are limited to a specific greeting or passage, and do not include the whole book.
In every other instance (as known throughout his time and ours) Paul employees scribes as consistant with his station in life.

Why did Paul use scribes? Primarily because that is how pharisees/his culture worked. Plus you also have to Remember he wasnt always writting to the same culture in the same language. To the jews he would have use hebrew/Aramaic, to the Galatians, koine greek, to the romans and the western part of the empire latin. While Paul was an highly educated man, it is very unlikely that he would have complete mastery over all those languages to such a degree to maintain the neuances/verbiage your articals are identifying as 'foreign inconsistant verbiage.' So again the useage of a scribes would account for these minor differences.

Again, your artical provides nothing new, only the leap of faith needed to assume a different scribe meant an unauthorized book/letter of Paul.

Nice try but your going to have to try a little harder still, because spinning known fact is not evidence.

---

So, let me get this straight.My faith was strong but because I don't agree with your interpretation of the bible, which you believe just happens to be the only one, god risked me losing my faith by making me doubt. Again, you have only proved your god is an asshole.

how did you strawman this out of what I said?

Again, you in a genuine earnest effort asked God to bring you closer, to assure you of your beliefs.

The problem? God did not/could not support your broken/corrupt system of faith. The solution? It is found in mat 7:24-29 God sent the rain and wind to test your house/faith. It failed. Much like my first few efforts did. The difference between you and me? I kept knocking, and rebuilding on what was left and eventually my 'house' could stand against the wind and rain.

Why do you worship this view of god, Drich?

because I seek to worship the God of the bible and as such am bound by the bible to define God.

You decided to follow the version of god that is apparently the most cruel among the different Christian versions of god.

Luckily, I followed my doubts

.... So for you it is better to worship a broken/failed version of God, get decimated by the trials of life and live apart from God rather than follow the truth of who God is as per the bible?!?

I think I like my way better. Even if God isn't santa clause I have come to terms with the idea that he does not have to be.

I forgot. You are a follower of John Calvin so you don't believe in an omnibenevolent deity.

I am a follower of the God of the bible. As such I am bound by the bible to describe and worship God. That being the case No where in the bible does it say God is Omni benevolent. Infact the opposite is true. It says in John 3:16 that while God has the potential to love everyone His love is conditional to those who believe and follow.

I am not familiar with the teaching of john well enough to say I am a follower, but so far he sounds like an ok bloke.

I looked through the passages that you copied and pasted. They say nothing about god being an enemy to everyone who doesn't believe in him.

then maybe you can also go back and re read my orginal statement with the same attention to detail. If you do you will find that I did not say everyone who doesn't believe God sees as an enemy. I like Christ said in the passage of john 8 I left you. Compared all non-believers to the 'sons' of God's enemy. That is why in my 'what if' senerio I asked you what if the son of your enemy wanted to cause harm/death to your son.
Would you treat him with the same love forgiveness and kindness as you would your own child?
(A question you have failed to answer btw.)

Again the problem your having is that everyone has it wrong except you. [/quote]

The only person that I have said is wrong on this thread is you. So, unless you and I live alone in the universe, I obviously don't think that everyone is wrong but me.

does God exist? Your answer:no. why do you say no? Because of what happened with your son and you can't imagine a God who works like you think he works could exist, therefore no God exist.

The problem with that bit-o-failed logic? You do not take into account that you weren't worshiping the God of the bible. That you were worship some pop christian construct that was built on church doctrine and empty tradition.

While I am the only person you failed to identify as be wrong on this forum, you have also failed to identify your religion/house for what it was as well. (A house built on sand.)

Aren't you a super special snowflake

I perfer unique sunflower.

Where do you live that the world is such a dangerous place, Drich

Red herring.
Answer the question.

Or can't you even openly admit to me that your reaction in God's position would be exactly the same, in that you would damn everyone of your enemy's children to death/hell, to protect your own sons from them?

---

Awesome try!

If you are getting hung up on the word/name lucifer, substitute it for 'satan.' Is from the hebrew word "Satan" which means the supernatural oppsition to God.

(You can use this word interchangably.)

I think you misunderstood my post or didn't actually read it.

In a nutshell, why would Isaiah speak of Mount Zaphon instead of Mount Zion when he is referring to God? Obviously Baal Hadad was the god of whoever wrote that passage in Isaiah. That passage was probably written during or after the Babylonian exile, because it is prophesying against the king of Babylon, so it demonstrates that the Israelites did not worship Yahweh until after the Babylonian exile. Most historians think that the OT was spliced and edited into its current form when the Israelites returned from Mesopotamia.

---

When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.

Ann Druyan the wife of Carl Sagan worte this after his death. I think it's beautiful but at the same time sad. Sad that two well educated people could not see any farther then the end of their noses, they had NO hope, no vision.

I was thinking the same thing, about how sad this was, and how completely devoid of hope this was. What's worse? Their next thoughts together.

---

I was reading some articles about athests who became Christians yesterday. I can't understand how an atheist who has researched the arguments is able to believe in Christianity. I can understand why some athiests might want to believe in Christianity (e.g. falling in love with a Christian, psychological needs, etc.), but I can't understand how they accomplish this feat.

I considered myself an atheist for 20 years, and I fell back into Christianity a few years ago, but I had not bothered to educate myself about why Christianity cannot be true - regardless of voices in our heads, apparent miracles, etc. Now that I have learned about the sausage factory that produced Judaism and Christianity over the past 3000 years, I cannot imagine believing in Christianity ever again.

There is a difference between an atheist accepting that some supernatural power might exist and accepting that this power revealed itself in Judaism and Christianity. I can understand how an atheist can convert to some other religion such as Buddhism, but Christianity...?

Are there intellectually honest arguments that provide a fig leaf for these atheists to convert?

All of the cases I'm familiar with involved a very religious significant other. Although you can't believe whatever you want in the blink of an eye, you can convince yourself to believe whatever you want if you try hard enough for long enough.

---

I converted from atheism

Why were you an atheist?

---

I can understand how a person who was indoctrinated into Christianity might know the history and still not be able to give up their beliefs.

I think it's understandable that someone raised a Christian might revert back to it. Especially early into being an atheist. There's often some anxiety about whether they were correct the first year or two. I'd be more surprised if someone went Christian->atheist->Muslim or vice versa. Not too surprised if they went Christian->atheist->new age, pagan, or Buddhist.

Because I like 'nope' endured much hardship and figured that an all loving God was crap, or not all powerful.

---

Plus beating up christians in high school was fun... Asking them questions that would shake them to the core was even better, put them together and you had my favorite past time.

[Drich]

Oh yeah, if there is an afterlife, then I don't lose anything by being an atheist. I'd rather there isn't, though. One is plenty for me.

If time is relative, then how do you know living out the preface of an infinite adventure is enough of anything?

---

I suspect death of yourself or a loved one is painful regardless of your belief or disbelief in an afterlife.

I'm not certain why they had no hope or vision.

Most of my hopes are based on reality. For example, I hope that my family likes their Christmas gifts. That hope is based on the fact that I bought them Christmas gifts-a reality. It would be absurd for me to hope that they like gifts that I wanted to magically appear in my house with no effort from me to go get them. That is the difference between my form of hope and a religious person's. I hope for things that have a reasonable-even if it is slight-chance of coming true.

We as a people can admit we don't have the full scope of 'reality' so then how can you base your life off of what is real? At best all you can do is live for what you can see/experience from your little corner of existence. This is how Carl and Ann lived.

[dyresand]

Oh yeah, if there is an afterlife, then I don't lose anything by being an atheist. I'd rather there isn't, though. One is plenty for me.

If time is relative, then how do you know living out the preface of an infinite adventure is enough of anything?

---

I'm not certain why they had no hope or vision.

Most of my hopes are based on reality. For example, I hope that my family likes their Christmas gifts. That hope is based on the fact that I bought them Christmas gifts-a reality. It would be absurd for me to hope that they like gifts that I wanted to magically appear in my house with no effort from me to go get them. That is the difference between my form of hope and a religious person's. I hope for things that have a reasonable-even if it is slight-chance of coming true.

We as a people can admit we don't have the full scope of 'reality' so then how can you base your life off of what is real? At best all you can do is live for what you can see/experience from your little corner of existence. This is how Carl and Ann lived.

Dirch what will you do if science figures out most of the important questions in your life time including reality. And that science puts the nail in the coffin of gods existence because that day will come. And what are you going to do?

[robvalue]

Drich: all I know is I'd rather hang up my hat after this go around than roll the dice again. I don't pretend to know what goes on outside of the reality I perceive. All I have to judge life by is this life, and it's not a good advertisement.

---

Not that it matters what I want, I don't think they'll be sending me a form.

[Drich]

If time is relative, then how do you know living out the preface of an infinite adventure is enough of anything?

---

We as a people can admit we don't have the full scope of 'reality' so then how can you base your life off of what is real? At best all you can do is live for what you can see/experience from your little corner of existence. This is how Carl and Ann lived.

Dirch what will you do if science figures out most of the important questions in your life time including reality. And that science puts the nail in the coffin of gods existence because that day will come. And what are you going to do?

Already beat you to it.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-23890.html

---

Drich: all I know is I'd rather hang up my hat after this go around than roll the dice again. I don't pretend to know what goes on outside of the reality I perceive. All I have to judge life by is this life, and it's not a good advertisement.

I can only imagine the "world is flat" guys had a similar philosophy in life.

[Thumpalumpacus]

When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.

Ann Druyan the wife of Carl Sagan worte this after his death. I think it's beautiful but at the same time sad. Sad that two well educated people could not see any farther then the end of their noses, they had NO hope, no vision.

It's not that they had "NO hopes, no vision" -- it's that they understood between themselves that even hope, and vision, have realistic limitations.

You're right that it's beautiful. It's sad in the sense that she lives with the memory that the great love of her life is no more. But what she says is true. The real beauty of love lies in the fact that it's a lightning strike that we not only survive, but need.

Perhaps my favorite lyric fro a rock song is "Entre Nous", from the Canadian band Rush:

We are secrets to each other
Each one's life a novel
No one else has read
Even joined in bonds of love
We're linked to one another
By such slender threads

We are planets to each other
Drifting in our orbits
To a brief eclipse
Each of us a world apart
Alone and yet together
Like two passing ships

Just between us
I think it's time for us to recognize
The differences we sometimes fear to show
Just between us
I think it's time for us to realize
The spaces in between
Leave room for you and I to grow

We are strangers to each other
Full of sliding panels
An illusion show
Acting well rehearsed routines
Or playing from the heart?
It's hard for one to know

Just between us
I think it's time for us to recognize
The differences we sometimes fear to show
Just between us
I think it's time for us to realize
The spaces in between
Leave room for you and I to grow

We are islands to each other
Building hopeful bridges
On a troubled sea
Some are burned or swept away
Some we would not choose
But we're not always free

Just between us
I think it's time for us to recognize
The differences we sometimes fear to show
Just between us
I think it's time for us to realize
The spaces in between
Leave room for you and I to grow

[Mudhammam]

Drich believes X is magical because X claims to be magical, though who is responsible for X is unknown. No further evidence is cited, and his opponents are told to try harder.

Does anyone need further confirmation that Christians are not only full of shit, but arrogantly so?

[h4ym4n]

I converted from atheism

Lol. Everyone enters the world atheist.