Non-believers

TheColl

If you had to quote one Bible passage, one anecdote, or simply just make one statement to attempt to turn a "non-believer" into a "believer" or at least set them on that road.... what would it be?

Fanny Cradock

I can't imagine that one quote would ever change the mind of an unbeliever.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can't imagine that one quote would ever change the mind of an unbeliever.

Apparently Martin Luther was converted by a line in Romans 3

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, "As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!" Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'" There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me...

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlconversion.htm
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

TheColl

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can't imagine that one quote would ever change the mind of an unbeliever.

Fair enough. How about to get them thinking?

antiskeptic

TheColl wrote: »

If you had to quote one Bible passage, one anecdote, or simply just make one statement to attempt to turn a "non-believer" into a "believer" or at least set them on that road.... what would it be?

The "gospel" is good news for bad people who know they're bad and bad news for people who think they're good.


Trite but true.

Soul Winner

TheColl wrote: »

If you had to quote one Bible passage, one anecdote, or simply just make one statement to attempt to turn a "non-believer" into a "believer" or at least set them on that road.... what would it be?

"Delight thyself also in the LORD: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Psalm 37:4

Fanny Cradock

TheColl wrote: »

Fair enough. How about to get them thinking?

I quite like the following quote that is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.

Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary

In a largely post-Christian culture, I think that many people have moved towards a nebulous belief in some spiritual afterlife. Often there is a negative preconception associated with Christianity (in Ireland this is usually something to do with a nasty experience they had with Catholicism) and I would think that works and actions are often the best way to preach to these people.

MrPudding

Soul Winner wrote: »

"Delight thyself also in the LORD: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Psalm 37:4

Nah. Didn't work.

MrP

Zombrex

TheColl wrote: »

If you had to quote one Bible passage, one anecdote, or simply just make one statement to attempt to turn a "non-believer" into a "believer" or at least set them on that road.... what would it be?

I'm an atheist, but it seems the easiest way to convert a non-believer into a believer is to simply appeal to some principle of innate common sense and then tie that to something your religion teaches that is along the same lines.

That seems more often that not to work pretty well, given that when most believers say why the believe the explanation goes along the line that they knew "X" deep down (eg the were rotten), and then when religion Y (say Islam) showed them why X happens (you have turned from God) they knew they had found the "truth".

If I was a more cynical man I would pull a Hubbard and make a million

philologos

Statements, words, and anything else don't bring people to Christ. In all actuality, people don't bring people to Christ. It is only by God are people drawn to God. He just sometimes works through individuals. There is no token line or phrase.

In fact, genuinely living out the Gospel is perhaps, the best testimony of Christian faith. It's something I aim, and struggle at doing.

Canis Lupus

Wait until the non believer has a personal tragedy or crisis then see if they're more susceptible?

Rented Mule

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Wait until the non believer has a personal tradegy or crisis then see if they're more susceptible?

Isn't that always the answer when it comes to any religion recruiting new members?

Fanny Cradock

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Wait until the non believer has a personal tradegy or crisis then see if they're more susceptible?

You are making a habit of making snide comments. I suggest you stop or take it where it will be appreciated.

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

Nah. Didn't work.

MrP

Ah well, nothing ventured nothing gained I suppose. Maybe we all need to consider the following verse before assuming that any words we can say will have any effect on the unbeliever.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:" John 6:44

If the Father is not drawing you then that can only mean He's not too bothered whether you come to Jesus or not. What else can it mean?

Stephentlig

Jakkass wrote: »

Statements, words, and anything else don't bring people to Christ. In all actuality, people don't bring people to Christ. It is only by God are people drawn to God. He just sometimes works through individuals. There is no token line or phrase.

In fact, genuinely living out the Gospel is perhaps, the best testimony of Christian faith. It's something I aim, and struggle at doing.

Good post I'm reminded also of what Franz Jaggerstatter Catholic Martyr said in a letter to his wife, which was ''A Christian is not recognised in what he says, but in what he does.'' ( his life story can be found on my blog http://thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com/search/label/Franz%20J%C3%A4gerst%C3%A4tter )

I would stress though that although Jesus is whom brings us to himself statements and words are that seed in which we plant and then God does the watering, as St.Paul mentions in the Bible.

Pax Christi
Stephen

PDN

I agree that a single quote or anecdote isn't going to undo a lifetime of other stuff. Nevertheless, a good point to get people thinking:

"The Son of God became the Son of Man so that the sons of men could become the sons of God." (John Calvin)

Maximilian

Some evidence would do the trick. If someone is a true athiest, there is likely no changing that person's mind. It's like trying to persuade an adult Santa exists.

PDN

Maximilian wrote: »

Some evidence would do the trick. If someone is a true athiest, there is likely no changing that person's mind. It's like trying to persuade an adult Santa exists.

Sorry to disillusion you - but lots of us used to be 'true' atheists.

Maximilian

PDN wrote: »

Sorry to disillusion you - but lots of us used to be 'true' atheists.

I have a feeling that's not entirely correct, rather you were a bit on the fence. Regardless, if you say so, I'm not going to call you a liar.

I only felt compelled to post here because the very idea of being converted to belief in god by anything in the bible is beyond laughable to me.

PDN

Maximilian wrote: »

I only felt compelled to post here because the very idea of being converted to belief in god by anything in the bible is beyond laughable to me.

You are entitled to your viewpoint, even if you have to support it be redefining the thousands of atheists who convert to Christ as not being 'true' atheists (I think over on the A&A forum they mockingly refer to your position as being 'the one true scotsman' argument).

However, before you feel compelled to post here again, I suggest you try reading the Forum Charter.

Fanny Cradock

Maximilian wrote: »

I have a feeling that's not entirely correct, rather you were a bit on the fence. Regardless, if you say so, I'm not going to call you a liar.

You just did.

Maximilian

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You just did.

No I didn't. I merely think there's a possibility he didn't realise he was on the fence or wasn't really an athiest. I find it difficult to understand how someone could change their mind like that.

PDN

Maximilian wrote: »

No I didn't. I merely think there's a possibility he didn't realise he was on the fence or wasn't really an athiest. I find it difficult to understand how someone could change their mind like that.

Actually I was a pretty aggressive hard-line atheist. People change their minds on things all the time. I think the world would be a much sorrier place if everyone just dogmatically clung onto all their presuppositions.

We should encourage people to think for themselves, to listen to one another, to weigh up the arguments and the evidence, and then to reach their own conclusions.

And, in my opinion, that means some people will become Christians, some people will become atheists, and some people will make different choices altogether.

Many of us used to be so arrogant as to think that our opinions were so right that anyone who disagreed with us must necessarily be deluded, uneducated, or wilfully blind. Thankfully, as we get older, we often grow up a bit and stop being intolerant asshats.

Maximilian

PDN wrote: »

Actually I was a pretty aggressive hard-line atheist. People change their minds on things all the time. I think the world would be a much sorrier place if everyone just dogmatically clung onto all their presuppositions.

We should encourage people to think for themselves, to listen to one another, to weigh up the arguments and the evidence, and then to reach their own conclusions.

And, in my opinion, that means some people will become Christians, some people will become atheists, and some people will make different choices altogether.

Many of us used to be so arrogant as to think that our opinions were so right that anyone who disagreed with us must necessarily be deluded, uneducated, or wilfully blind. Thankfully, as we get older, we often grow up a bit and stop being intolerant asshats.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be an asshat thank you very much.

PDN

Maximilian wrote: »

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be an asshat thank you very much.

Actually I was saying that I used to be an asshat (not just because I was an atheist, as I meet many Christian asshats, but because of my arrogance).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Sorry to disillusion you - but lots of us used to be 'true' atheists.

I agree that you were a "true" atheist in that you didn't believe in God, but what I think he means is atheist like the regular posters on the A&A forum, and judging from your posts about being an atheist and the comments you have made about how you became a theist, you weren't anything like them, or me.

It is the problem I guess when atheist is such a broad catch all term.

Maximilian

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree that you were a "true" atheist in that you didn't believe in God, but what I think he means is atheist like the regular posters on the A&A forum, and judging from your posts about being an atheist and the comments you have made about how you became a theist, you weren't anything like them, or me.

It is the problem I guess when atheist is such a broad catch all term.

It's kind of what I mean. Look, I really don't to get into the business of antagonizing people or belittling what they sincerely choose to believe but going from athiest to theist is to me - in my humble opinion - a little like knowing the truth about "a thing" and nevertheless choosing to believe the opposite. The only rational explanation for that I can think of is that such a person never actually knew/understood the 'truth' to begin with or for some other psychological reason, couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

Anyway, I think this is the wrong forum and the wrong topic for such a discussion. I only posted here because I found the OP's question ridiculous. It's like asking what quote from the Origin of Species would convert a muslim.

crotalus667

TheColl wrote: »

If you had to quote one Bible passage, one anecdote, or simply just make one statement to attempt to turn a "non-believer" into a "believer" or at least set them on that road.... what would it be?

On more than one occasion I have read the entire book cover to cover and I can firmly say that there was not one passage that could “convert me” (maybe if I read a few of them and ignored the rest I may have been convinced to be more tolerant of the religion but that is just conjecture) there was one passage that lead me to read other passages which lead me to read the whole book cover to cover with out wanting to go into it lets just say it is one of the lesser preached passages

philologos

Maximilian wrote: »

It's kind of what I mean. Look, I really don't to get into the business of antagonizing people or belittling what they sincerely choose to believe but going from athiest to theist is to me - in my humble opinion - a little like knowing the truth about "a thing" and nevertheless choosing to believe the opposite. The only rational explanation for that I can think of is that such a person never actually knew/understood the 'truth' to begin with or for some other psychological reason, couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

Anyway, I think this is the wrong forum and the wrong topic for such a discussion. I only posted here because I found the OP's question ridiculous. It's like asking what quote from the Origin of Species would convert a muslim.

Are you claiming that this is a special case for atheism?

Were ex-Christians who had lost their faith not really Christian at all?
Include any other religion in the place of Christian and you'll see what I mean.

wolfsbane

TheColl wrote: »

If you had to quote one Bible passage, one anecdote, or simply just make one statement to attempt to turn a "non-believer" into a "believer" or at least set them on that road.... what would it be?

The power to convert does not come from the argument itself. The argument (the words used) is necessary, but it is the Spirit who prepares the heart to receive it. The Parable of the Soils is a good illustration. All the types of soil received the seed, but only that which was good bore fruit. That is, men in all moral conditions hear the word, but only those whose heart has been prepared by God will benefit from it.

Any truth can be used by God to convict the sinner. But it is the gospel message that informs one of how to be saved, and it is the Spirit who uses that to bring repentance unto life.

The gospel message comes in many forms, but all with the same truth: God has provided a Saviour for all who turn to Him in repentance and faith.

One of my favourites is:
Matthew 11:28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the problem I guess when atheist is such a broad catch all term.

What? An atheist is simply somebody who rejects the existence of the divine. Nothing more.

Maximilian

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you claiming that this is a special case for atheism?

Were ex-Christians who had lost their faith not really Christian at all?
Include any other religion in the place of Christian and you'll see what I mean.

If I understand you correctly, I suppose I am, although I wouldn't call it 'special'. In the same way I would make a similar 'special case' for facts over fiction.

philologos

There is nothing to suggest that Christianity is fiction or that atheism represents fact. The only really rational position that one can hold without believing, is that it is far from certain that Christianity is true.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What? An atheist is simply somebody who rejects the existence of the divine. Nothing more.

That's exactly why it's so broad. If the definition was somebody who rejects the existence of the divine, collects stamps and only eats fish fingers it would be less broad.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

That's exactly why it's so broad. If the definition was somebody who rejects the existence of the divine, collects stamps and only eats fish fingers it would be less broad.

Right... If you guys want to go down the denominational route be my guest.

cypharius

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What? An atheist is simply somebody who rejects the existence of the divine. Nothing more.

Actualy, I think you will find that an Atheist is somebody who doesn't accept the existance of the "divine".

It's not that I believe god doesn't exist, it's that I don't believe he does.

What you described would be Anti-Theism or Non-theism.

Fanny Cradock

cypharius wrote: »

Actualy, I think you will find that an Atheist is somebody who doesn't accept the existance of the "divine".

It's not that I believe god doesn't exist, it's that I don't believe he does.

What you described would be Anti-Theism or Non-theism.

Yes, way to miss the point of my post. Perhaps you need to update the Wiki article on atheism (small "a" yeah?) to reflect your position.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Right... If you guys want to go down the denominational route be my guest.

Har har.

Maximilian

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that Christianity is fiction

Of course there is. The total lack of any evidence. Something recognized by atheists. If there were evidence, you wouldn't need to bother with faith.

ChocolateSauce

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apparently Martin Luther was converted by a line in Romans 3






http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlconversion.htm

Martin Luther also said that logic and reason was the enemy of the Christian,

philologos

Maximilian wrote: »

Of course there is. The total lack of any evidence. Something recognized by atheists. If there were evidence, you wouldn't need to bother with faith.

This is something I've contested on numerous occasions on the A&A forum over previous years. There is evidence to support Christianity, I've pointed people to numerous sources before.

You're obfuscating evidence with proof by the way. Evidence doesn't necessarily make something proven. It merely indicates that something is true.

Even if there were a lack of evidence, fiction is a stretch.

Stephentlig

Maximilian wrote: »

Of course there is. The total lack of any evidence. Something recognized by atheists. If there were evidence, you wouldn't need to bother with faith.

But the total lack of evidence that there isnt a God suggests that atheism is as fictional as alice in wonderland.

You put your faith in man and his words and puported works, and we put our faith in the tens of thousands of witnesses down through the centuries and today who have experienced God in many ways.

If God ( who has to power to convert but does not force himself) were to show himself to everyone and lets suppose he did attempt to do so, he would compel us against our own free will and we'd all have to belief in him, but God respects our free will to choose him or not. But as I suggested before that when Christ showed himself to St.Thomas in the Gospel, St.Thomas still had the free will to refuse what he saw and claim it to be an hallucination or a trick of the mind, etc etc and the list goes on. Such is the power of the free will you have been given. but simply rejecting God doesnt get rid of him, he will always be in your heart and see all that you do, and will be waiting until you accept the evidence he has provided and to turn to faith in him, from faith in science and the whimsical rhetorical nonsense of philosophical mischief makers such as dawkins to name one.

Pax Christi
Stephen

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Martin Luther also said that logic and reason was the enemy of the Christian,

Luther also said, "So it is with human reason, which strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it." (Table Talk 1569)

His actual position, if you're really interested in understanding him rather than quoting him out of context (as frequently happens on atheist propaganda websites), was that reason alone will lead us down a wrong path, because our sinful natures makes us hopelessly subjective. So we need to combine reason and logic with faith in the Scriptures.

Maximilian

Jakkass wrote: »

This is something I've contested on numerous occasions on the A&A forum over previous years. There is evidence to support Christianity, I've pointed people to numerous sources before.

Your obfuscating evidence with proof by the way. Evidence doesn't necessarily make something proven. It merely indicates that something is true.

Even if there were a lack of evidence, fiction is a stretch.

I can't imagine any such supposed evidence being credible, I'm sorry. Again, if there were, there would be no need for faith and I'm pretty sure Creationists and their ilk would be shouting to the high heavens (sorry about the pun) about it.

And as for your other point, there's no more evidence for the existence of god than there is proof, if you choose to make that semantic distinction. If evidence indicates truth, then what does a lack of evidence indicate?

Rented Mule

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are making a habit of making snide comments. I suggest you stop or take it where it will be appreciated.

It wasn't a snide comment at all. It was a truthful comment.

Where do you see most 'converts' coming from ? AA, NA,hospitals, hospices prison. It seems as though these are the places that most religions will 'troll' to try and recruit new members. People who are down on their luck and vulnerable.

PDN

Maximilian wrote: »

I can't imagine any such supposed evidence being credible, I'm sorry. Again, if there were, there would be no need for faith and I'm pretty sure Creationists and their ilk would be shouting to the high heavens (sorry about the pun) about it.

And as for your other point, there's no more evidence for the existence of god than there is proof, if you choose to make that semantic distinction. If evidence indicates truth, then what does a lack of evidence indicate?

We've had the evidence debate many times before in this Forum before folks, so let's not drag this thread off-topic as well.

And, I might say, its depressing to see that people still keep parrotting this uninformed misconception that faith is something blind rather than a decision made on the available evidence.

Maximilian

Stephentlig wrote: »

But the total lack of evidence that there isnt a God suggests that atheism is as fictional as alice in wonderland.
Stephen

Proving a negative etc. Nonsensical argument. You can't prove the non-existence of fairies, sentient flying carpets, dragons, genies or any other diety for that matter. That does not mean any are real or a refusal to believe in them is equally fictional, false or irrational.

I didn't read the rest.

TheColl

Thanks for staying on-topic people :rolleyes:

Was actually hoping to get a few interesting responses. Instead it seems to have descended into the typical Christianity v atheism sh!t3.

Stephentlig

Maximilian wrote: »

Proving a negative etc. Nonsensical argument. You can't prove the non-existence of fairies, sentient flying carpets, dragons, genies or any other diety for that matter. That does not mean any are real or a refusal to believe in them is equally fictional, false or irrational.

I didn't read the rest.

''That you cannot prove Gods non-existence is accepted and trivial'' dawkins informs his readers, ''if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.'' To use an example dawkins borrows from bertrand Russell, we cannot disprove the existence of a microscopically small china teapot revolving around the sun between earth and mars because, in this hypothetical example, the existence of the thing in question is undetectable by any known means, and so the non existence is impossible to prove. That shouldnt bother us, however. ''None of us feels an obligation to disprove any of the millions of far fetched things that a fertile or facetious imagination might dream up.'' such as the orbiting china teapot, or just as fantastically, an ''invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn,'' or the ''flying spagetti monster.'' Yet, one ''undisprovable thing is worthy of the effort of our attention, God. ''What matters is not whether God is disprovable ( he isnt ) but whether or his existence is probable.''

Why does it matter? Why is it any more neccesary to go after the undisprovable God, rather than after undetectable teapots or unicorns? One obvious answer would be that the number of people who beleive in undetectable teapots or invisible intangible, inaudible unicorns is negligible, but the number of people that believe in God is nearly uncountable.

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

We've had the evidence debate many times before in this Forum before folks, so let's not drag this thread off-topic as well.

And, I might say, its depressing to see that people still keep parrotting this uninformed misconception that faith is something blind rather than a decision made on the available evidence.

Sorry PDN in the middle of writing I seemed to have missed this post. *puts his obedience to the mod cap on*

summer2010

Do what kabbalah did and get celebrities involved. Madonna and Britney wore the red thread bracelets associated with kabbalah and more "believers" seemed to come... Just saying...