Last week one of this forum's Christian members remarked that several years ago he had been an atheist. That comment piqued my curiosity as to what would bring about such a transformation.

To that end, this thread poses the following question to former atheists: What caused you to become a believer?

Fear?

My guess would be loneliness.

cost nothing to believe,

In calling for comments, do you seek only those who were always atheist and then became believer?  Or those who may have had some experience with religion prior to any experience of atheism or other manifestations of doubt or skepticism?

 

Whether a person was always atheist, or had prior experience with religion, is of no importance to me. I'm only interested in learning what caused the change from atheist to believer.

Out of curiosity, what were the reasons for leaving originally? I only ask because it could be the reason, or part of the reason, you're having such a hard time now.

Love you Stan.

Not  pity.

The kind of love which lends itself to respect, honor, and great inner strength.

Samuri brass love brother!

I grew up during the rise of the religious right and the hardening of people's views when it came to things like science and government.  I started hearing a lot less preaching about trying to live a righteous life and more sermons on homosexuals, Catholics, evolution, the U.S. being a Christian nation, etc...
































 

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
12"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?
13"If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.…Matt 18


John 9

1As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” 6Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud 7and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

8The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar were saying, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” 9Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.” 10So they said to him, “Then how were your eyes opened?” 11He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed and received my sight.” 12They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I do not know.”

13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. 14Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 15So the Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” 16Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them. 17So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”

18The Jewsa did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight 19and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” 20His parents answered, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” 22(His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesusb to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.) 23Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

24So for the second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” 25He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” 26They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” 28And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” 30The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. 32Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.

35Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”c 36He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” 38He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. 39Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt;d but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

I considered myself an atheist for 32 years and had no reason to believe in a god.  I remember back around 1980 riding my Harley chopper by a church and thinking to myself why do those people waist their time going to church if there is no god.  By 1988 I had gone to So Cal in search of the meaning of life and what I was on the planet for. Was living with a Christian girl and she would read the proverbs to me.  I was amazed at the wisdom in them and also had many things pulling me toward GOD at the same time. I finally agreed to go to a church but it was a United Pentecostal and they ran my up front and tried to get me to talk in tounges  and we left  there very confused.    That night she prayed for someone to talk to me about Jesus and the next day a man walked up to me and asked me if I knew Jesus.  He explained the Gospel to me and,  It was my day to meet the Savior.  I married that Girl and soon started bible college.   Now I teach Bible college.

Can you elaborate on that, please? Was there something specific that person said to you which caused the change?

What are some things that don't make sense, if you don't mind me asking?

What dogmas caused you to lose your faith?

First he asked me if I went to church and then he asked if I had accepted Jesus as my savior to which I replied no.  The spirit had been drawing me so all he had to do was present the Gospel and I was ready and eager to hear it.   Jesus calls that the seed that fell on good soil.

For me it was studying NT history and the foundation of the Christian church. I became convinced of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

Can you cite anything in particular which convinced you the resurrection is historical fact?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0567029107/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3R34QPJVMQGL7&coliid=I2UNZIQI9PSH6
 






















 


 

Stanc, have you looked into any of these?  If so, any thoughts?

I was actually raised in the Episcopal Church and left that in my late 20s for the same reasons you cited: the church was not teaching what was in the Bible. Instead, they were telling me what I should believe the Bible says. After bouncing around from church to church and finding the same thing everywhere, I actually ended up being baptized and worshiping with a local church of Christ. Three years later, I'm a full-time preacher in a different congregation, so I guess in a way I've ended up where you started.

Another funny thing, when I started reading and studying the Bible for myself, I became more and more convinced of its truth. Obviously, it's not all literal. Jesus refers to Herod as, "that fox." Obviously, that's not literal. Then there's all the apocalyptic language that you see in various books, which is also not literal. However, I don't see any error in it when I look at the "big picture."

No real point in that, just sort of an interesting (to me, anyway) similarity and contrast in our stories. I will say that the churches of Christ are a funny thing, which is easily explained by understanding that, like every other group of people, it's made of, well, people. Sometimes, people do odd or bad things.

A few quick observation about the churches of Christ from someone who was not "raised in the church."

1. My first congregation is pretty conservative (mainstream churches would call them "antis"), but it very strongly encourages personal study and discussion among brethren. I have never been told anything on the order of "believe this or get out." That should be qualified by saying that my personal study of the Bible puts me into agreement on all the major points. However, things like "alcohol is a sin" is not something that's a dogma in our congregation. Some say it is, some say it isn't, and nobody really gets on anyone's case. Instead, we all just respect each other's boundaries and move on with life. To me, that's exactly what a Christian congregation should be.

2. Churches of Christ can act like a denomination all the while vehemently denying that they are a denomination. That's a long discussion, but suffice it to say that I've run into congregations and individuals who essentially hold to a creed that they got from their own traditions. That's bad, but it's there. Churches of Christ are by no means immune to starting sentences with, "We believe...," just as in a denominational creed or statement of faith.

3. Sometimes, bad apples manage to gain control of a congregation. I know of at least three cases in which elders behaved towards their congregations in ways that were absolutely sinful, but the membership let it continue. In one case, an elder dressed down a young Christian man who led a song that the elder didn't like. It wasn't that the song said anything wrong or scripturally incorrect, just that the elder didn't like it because it wasn't traditional enough. In another case, an elder told a brother in a meeting that he was an elder and could do whatever he wanted, and the brother had to do what the elder commanded. In the other case, the elders told their evangelist to quit evangelizing. All of these things are in direct opposition to how elders--and Christians in general, for that matter--are taught to behave. But, nobody's perfect.

In short, as long as people are involved, there will be disagreements of varying degrees. The churches of Christ that I've attended (which is precious few) have all been fine, but certainly not flawless.

Just some random thoughts, and none particularly useful I suppose.

I would be interested in what you've read in the Bible that strikes you as erroneous. Anyway, I wish you the best in getting things figured out.

I'd be interested to hear what didn't make sense to you if you care to post it here.

I have not looked into them. I don't read books, anymore. I think the last time I read a book was 2011, and the last time I bought one was years before that.

Sure, as is flowery prose like, "thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb."

However, other things are not so obvious. For instance, some Christians say that Genesis is literal, and others say it is not.

How do you know it isn't?

Does that mean you ignore any errors in the "small pictures?"

Take Daniel, for example. There's the vision of the statue, the vision of the rams, etc. The text actually explains what these visions mean, and they aren't literal. In each case, these things represent the various empires that are to come. Same with the other critters that show up in Daniel. These are examples of apocalyptic language, that is, language that's heavy on symbolism and not to be take literally. For a later example, the woman riding the beast in Revelation seems to match up pretty nicely with the Roman Empire if you read through the description.


For instance?

I dunno. You didn't say that you don't see any error in the Bible, you said that you don't see any error in the Bible when you look at the "big picture."

That qualifying phrase makes me wonder if you've seen errors, but discount them as, say, not important to the "big picture" (whatever you mean by that).

Gotcha. For one example, the events of Gethsemane are recorded in all four gospels. When you read the gospel accounts of how Jesus greeted Judas in Gethsemane, you read different things:



So, in each account in the synoptic gospels the dialogue between Jesus and Judas is a little different. John does not record any dialog between the two. Is that an error? Some would jump all over that and say yes, the inconsistency equals error.

I would not say that. If I were a detective interviewing witnesses, it would be clear to me that Judas betrayed Jesus into the hands of those who had been seeking to kill him for a long time. I would argue that there are several possibilities. One of those is the witnesses simply didn't remember exactly what was said years later when they wrote it down. Another possibility is everything that was recorded was said--it would be very easy to consolidate all of the quotes into one, consistent dialogue. As a man of faith, I don't see any need to do it.

However, someone who does not have faith might act as a defense attorney in my witnesses-to-a-crime metaphor. That person might argue, "See? The witnesses can't agree on what was said. That means their testimony is not sound and we must throw out everything they said." That, however, ignores that all of the witnesses reported the same event whether or not they reported exactly the same words.

That's the sort of thing that I mean. There are differences in the dialogue recorded in the story of Gethsemane, but for me anyway, those differences are harmonious. They don't confuse what happened and all of the stories end up showing exactly the same thing: one of Jesus' own betrayed Him, but He did not show anger at His betrayer. Then, He went willingly and peacefully with his captors whom He knew intended to kill him.

Probably more than you wanted to hear, but there's my two cents.

I'm not a man of faith, but I concur with that analysis. Thanks for elaborating.

How do you reconcile the order of events when the soldiers ear was cut off.

Mark 14:45-47 And when he [Judas] came, he went up to him at once and said, "Rabbi!" And he kissed him. And they laid hands on him and seized him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.

Luke 22:47-51 While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him.

In Luke, Jesus had not been seized yet.

Luke 22:54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a distance.

Also curious how you reconcile the differing versions of the story of the empty tomb.

I can see how New Age believers can justify this, as many do not believe the Bible to be the inerrant and literal word of God, but merely divinely inspired, and recorded by fallible humans.  My issue is, if the Bible isn't inerrant, why would we believe any of it?

I grew up believing and have spent the last few years studying the history/authenticity of the bible and questioning the contradictions that seem to be included.  I want to believe, but it doesn't quite sit right with me. I haven't been a diligent student as I have pretty much resigned to the fact, no one can offer proof, no one will ever know for a fact and I simply don't want to waste time on something that can not have a satisfactory ending.  Even the most authentic Christians I know have to take that leap of faith and adopt the attitude of "It doesn't make sense, we can't begin to fathom how God works / God works in mysterious ways / etc.) That is not good enough for me.  If the Bible is true and Yahweh exists, then hopefully he can forgive my unbelief, if not, I am willing to suffer the consequences of my choice.

I am the black sheep of the family, with three uncles who are pastors, an uncle who is an elder and a father who is a deacon.

When I read those, I don't see anything to reconcile. Once again, the witnesses agree on what happened. Both say that one of Christ's followers attacked a soldier, cutting off his ear. Exactly when in the chain of events Peter took Malchus' ear has absolutely no bearing on the story. What is important is Jesus telling Peter to stop fighting and to allow it to happen. After all, if they prevented this, they prevented the fulfillment of God's plan for our salvation!

Again resorting to my cheesy metaphor, the details might vary a little, but a detective listening to the two witnesses' accounts would certainly conclude that they described the same event and the same things happening.  


I honestly haven't thought too much about it. Again, for me what resonates is the empty tomb itself, on which the gospels all obviously agree. I'll have to defer any kind of detailed answer until I have a chance to study each account with this in mind, but off the top of my head I do seem to remember that each account speaks of the women seeing Him first. What happens between that point and His appearance to the apostles is a little muddled in my memory. I'll give that a read and post a better answer later on tonight or perhaps in the morning.


I'll tell you this: I grew up in the Episcopal Church and the only reason I believed in the way that I did was because that's what I was taught. To a kid, that's just the way things are and no explanation is needed. As I grew up, I saw the church change and start condoning things that used to be considered wrong. If God was so immutable and perfect, why would He move the goal posts on us? My conclusion was, the church must be wrong. So, I left.

During the 20 years or so through which I didn't worship or read my Bible, I had this nagging feeling that I should be taking care of my spirituality, but I had developed lots of the same sorts of questions. Eventually, I started reading and studying for myself, and the more I've done that, the more sense the Bible makes to me. I hit some of the same sorts of snags you're describing, but I simply made up my mind to read the whole thing whether I got it or not. There's a lot between those covers and it's not organized chronologically, so it's a lot to digest. Anyway, once I read it and got that "big picture," everything clicked and lots of things made sense that had not ever made sense for me before (such as why Christians don't have to stone adulterers or why Christians would care about things as seemingly arbitrary as the cities of refuge). There are still plenty of things I just don't get, but the more I study it, the more sense it makes.

So here we are, and it wasn't until later in life that I had finally found my own faith. No longer was my faith the faith that my parents or my preacher had taught me, it was the faith that I had developed by discarding all of that and reading for myself what God taught me.

Make no mistake, faith is involved. Jesus told Thomas, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." We did not see, but we can read. Either we believe it or we don't--there will be no proof until the end. I would tell you that the Bible is incredibly consistent, especially when you consider it was written by dozens of authors over scores of centuries. That, to me, is certainly some proof that it came from a source not constrained by time.

Again, sorry for the non-answer about the empty tomb. I will write up something better, but it will have to wait as I have to prepare for a Bible study tomorrow morning, a meeting tomorrow afternoon, and I need to finish Sunday's sermon early--I'm going back to visit Parris Island Friday and Saturday and want to be able to enjoy that without worrying about being unprepared for Sunday morning!

Yes, up until the age of 8 or 9, I believed that God was real because my parents said so. I can't help but wonder how many people would be believers if they were not so indoctrinated in childhood by their parents and other authority figures.

Did those authors write without knowing what had been previously written? Or had they read existing portions of the Bible before writing their own chapter?

That is one of the things about the bible that is in dispute.  One side says it was totally unrelated people writing down revelations from God.  Then those writings perfectly line up to tell a beautiful story with a central theme.  The other side says it was stories that had been passed down for generations, which were then recorded and edited throughout history to mesh and support a central theme.  How are you supposed to know which one is true... Beats me!

I have been around enough zealots and seen enough human nature to find the second argument more plausible, but I suppose that is where faith allows you to make the leap and believe the first.

It wasn't unrelated people writing things down and it wasn't passed down for generations either, at least the New Testament.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written between 50-80 AD. These were not passed down from generation to generation.
Mark is thought to be written first. Then Matthew and Luke, it's not clear which one was first but they're pretty close. John is thought to be last.
Mark is believed to be written for Peter, or at least a documentation of Peter's preaching.
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and apostles of Jesus.
Luke was not an eyewitness or an apostle, but interviewed nemerous people that were witnesses. He also wrote the book of Acts.

About half of the New Testament was written by Paul, give or take a few books. These books are actually letters that were written to churchs or people.

There's a lot more to it, but those are the very basics.

The New Testament was not written then. Those "chapters" are actually books or letters. See my response above.

There is a difference between the 'literal meaning' of the author(s) and believing that the Bible is 'literally true.'



Literal vs. Literalist

I think I know what you mean, but care to elaborate?

religion boils down to 2 things. Self preservation and vengeance
you will be amazed how many will tell you they believe out of fear of being wrong, which means they fail the faith test anyway.
then others will tell you it helps them to know everyone gets their up and comings. So god beats people up for them, so nice.
there seem to be fewer and fewer people who know HOW to be religious.

I would have to say those two groups of people have not met our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, nor do they follow him.

You forgot a third group that has met him and has a relationship with him. Their lives have been changed by the power of the Holy Spirit, and you can know them by their fruit.

So you are saying that accepting Jesus as your savior is not enough?  Many, many churches preach that saying the words in your heart, hoping that you will eventually fully comprehend what that means and bring about life change (fruits), is enough.  Is salvation based on unwavering belief (only shown through works) or grace?  A huge percentage of people fall into those two categories which fall short of your criteria and would not be saved except for grace.

Let's say an author writes that 'its raining cats and dogs.' Should someone read that phrase 2,000 years from now would they think that it means that dogs and cats were falling from the sky or would they think that the author intended to convey that it was a heavy downpour of rain? It is the readers job to discern the 'literal meaning' of the phrase based on the authors intent.



From the Catechism:

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound
   understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ;
   thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory
   and also of Christian Baptism.⁸⁴


2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction.”⁸⁵


3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading”). We
   can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance,
   leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign
   of the heavenly Jerusalem.

 

So an all powerful God decided to leave his instruction and message to mankind via a book that has to be interpreted?  Interpretation in and of itself leads to error and misunderstanding (as evidenced by the numerous offshoots of christian groups/beliefs).  I find that idea and the God that it represents unworthy of worship.  Sure you can argue that I am simply man and can't begin to fathom God or even have the authority to judge his worthiness of worship, but a God that grants freewill passes that authority to us.

I look at the complexity of even the smallest things on this earth and absolutely believe in a creator, I just don't think the Bible points to that creator.

Accepting Jesus as our Savior is not just enough, it's the only thing. Now, what does "accepting Jesus as our Savior" mean?  Just to say we believe in Jesus?  No, Matthew 7:21-23 says 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Now, if it were works based wouldn't the prophesying, driving out demons, and performing miracles in the name of Jesus qualify them for heaven?  After all, the apostles did these things!  But Jesus said he didn't know them. Why?  Not because of works, but because of a lack of a relationship with him.

Now about grace. Ephesians 2: 8-9 says 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

The works (fruit) are the result of faith, and comes from faith.

With all due respect, I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't think you know enough about the bible to make a judgement one way or the other.

With all due respect, I know more about the Bible and have read through it more times than most believers I know.  Certainly doesn't make me an expert, but my unbelief is a result of studying the bible, not just outright rejecting it.

You inferred a lot that I did not say or even hint at. Why ask a question if you already have a statement to make? Just make your statement rather than asking me to waste time formulating a cogent and rational response.
 

Bigger,
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

I did not mean to put words in your mouth.  That was my interpretation of what you posted.  Parts of the Bible are meant to be taken as literal and some as spiritual (allegorical, moral or anagogical).  Different people and groups have interpreted the same verses in different ways, leading to confusion, infighting and conflict.  I can't comprehend why an all powerful God would take that chance with something so important.  The book itself says that many who believe they are saved will not be.  A loving, all powerful God who desires every person to be with him in eternity is OK with his message being misinterpreted and misleading his loved ones?

Regarding above, I asked a question then elaborated my thoughts and opinion on the subject.  I was merely trying to offer some context to my question.

Yes, I can't understand it unless/until I have been called and I can't be called until I make an effort to understand.  Not can't but unlikely to be called until I make an effort.

I grew up in the church, have been baptized and lived the life of a Christian for 30+ years (10 years as an adult and having been baptized), fully believing until a few years ago.  I started studying the Bible, not in an effort to disprove, but to be a better servant and be a better spiritual leader of my family.  What I found studying the Bible led me to unbelief.

Was I called before?  Did it just not take or is it not the truth?  Still searching for the answer.

I hear what you're saying, and you're not alone. There's been many people in your shoes. Reading the bible is absolutely good, and if you've read it enough, like it sounds you have, then you might start seeing the challenges of translation.

Here's my suggestion: (you may have done most of this)
1. Study how the bible was written. Who wrote the books and who they were written to.
2. Biblegateway.com has a translation called the Mounce reverse-linear translation. It has the English translation with the original greek words underneath that you can click on to get the definition.
3. Regarding interpreting the bible, it's not only the bible that can be misinterpreted, people can come to different conclusions on almost every writing. Lets take the US constitution as an example. This is why it's important to try to understand the writers meaning and intent when he wrote the book or letter.

Also, praying before you study that the Holy Spirit will reveal His truth is essential. And be honest with God about your doubt. What did Jesus say to Thomas when he doubted?

But Jesus Christ left us a Church and sacred tradition initiated by the apostles who were given the power of loosing and binding and then carried forward by an unbroken succession of leaders who have that same teaching authority so that we can be assured of the veracity of what we read and its intended meaning. The splintering of Christianity into some 26,000 modes of interpretation began at the time of the reformation. For 1500 years the overwhelming majority of Christians held to the same set of beliefs.