>Hi Peter,
>
>Please to 'meet' you. I used to hang out here a lot and get involved in these discussion but circumstances, etc caused me to forego the fun. <g>
>
>I'll answer you below.
>
>>>Hi Bret,
>>>
>>>Well, Dragan seemed to be interested in the science approach. I thought he might find it interesting reading. The Case for Christ is a bit more problematic for me to recommend in a case like this. The whole set of concepts of God, man's responsibility to God, God's right to expect certain attitudes & actions, etc all come from the notion that there actually IS a god, which is a sort of 'first step', so to speak. If you can then get someone to at least entertain the notion of the possibility of 'a god' you must then, in the interest of intellectual honesty, show them the philisophical 'connection' and basis in thought if they are again so inclined. And then one needs to discover that this 'god' is a personal god, not impersonal. If you can get there then you need to have a discussion about what constitutes real 'knowing' and how one can really know (experiential & intellectual - gnosis & ouides respectively) this God. Then you need to go through several 'layers' where they sort
>through
>>>the issues of evil and death and so forth that thinking people will always have at this point. And on & on..
>>>
>>>What makes me laugh are those who think that Christianity is for non-thinkers. LOL
>>
>>Doug,
>>
>>For the children of many believers all these steps are probably not needed. So, I guess those children can adequately be described as, what you call, non-thinkers. Their reasoning is: "Of course there exists a God!!!!"
>>I know that other believers do their best to let their children think a lot about it.
>>
>>As for the adults who try a Christian conversion, I think that you describe well the steps that they have to take. But the steps sound forced to me. I think it is indeed a hard job for a not-yet-believer to make a new view of the world in the brain that incorporates the idea of an existing God. It must be as hard as redefining everything in order to validate the notion that time doesn't exist. (There is a tribe in Brazil where time is not part of their language. They don't have the notions 'tomorrow' and 'yesterday'.)
>
>Well, I think you sort of put your finger on a VERY important issue: Choice.

Did I? I'm not aware of that, but I can see how you come to that idea. But honestly, I really did put a finger on something else: rationalization. Pity you didn't see that. I guess I should have been more clear here.


>To attempt to force someone else to belives is totally absurd. That is, I would think, far different than engaging others in public discourse on spiritual issues.

Agree.


>The problem as I see it would be two-fold: Those on the faith side who are inexperienced, unlearned, perhaps a little too eager, some actualy hateful (not a good thing), and so forth. Those on the other side can be equally stupid in their remarks.

Agree.


>The bottom line from theposition of what I'd call Historic Christianity, not the bastardized versions that are around us everywhere, is that God CHOSE to give man free will. Man CHOSE, against God' instrustions to assert his will in opposition to God's will. (What we call sin - an old Latin archery term for 'missing the mark')> God, being just MUST exact a payment for this. However, from the HC position God Himself paid the proce for man's sins. So, to gain forgiveness one must repent (translation from Greek essentially means 'agree with') and ask for this free gift. No one can deserve is and as such cannot lay burdens onothers (see where the modern churches are missing the idea now? <g>)

What is Historic Christianity? Is that regular Catholicism and Protestantism?
For the rest of your explanation: I don't believe in any God, so for me there is no situation of a God who gave me the opportunity to choose. If you think otherwise, then you make a logical mistake.


>Love is not love when forced.

Agree.

>Choice MUST be honored.

By whom?

>Sop, here's the deal: God gives man CHOICE, mann chhoses badly, God pays the price and SOME will CHOOSE to return to God.
>
>No one is being forced - and that's why I really dislike it when foks try to force others to believe soemthing. (Same for Islam btw, or someothers I won't go onto here)
>
>Those that choose to reject God.. Well, he will honor that choice. Those that choose to accept what God has offered will receive it.

I don't reject God, because I cannot reject something that doesn't exist. Similar: I don't hate God, because I cannot hate something that doesn't exist. I don't choose against God, because... well, hopefully you got the picture.


>So, we all make our choice. The children of believes must make their own choice. No coattails. As far as the adults go, you are actually more correct thanyou might imagine. SOmething like 82% of all believers make their decision for Christ in their teenage years. Seems our brains get crusty as we get older and changing our thinking is, as you suggest, an enormous amount of work. Still, I would always ecourage folks to challenge their thought processes and as there IS ample proof it seems such a shame to not do so.

Doug, you are a (parttime, unpaid) missionary, you know that. I don't mind. It is your right indeed. I can only hope that, on the other hand, you are willing to listen to the arguments of the atheist missionaries who want to challenge YOUR thought processes.



>>[snip]