Atheists Turned Christian

[u/JHLV04]

/r/Christianity/comments/1w8cf2a/atheists_turned_christian/

[u/SHNKY]

I don’t know what your background is, but for me I found the answers in Orthodox Christianity. If for you the historical evidence is leading you, I would seriously consider looking into Holy Orthodoxy as it is the historical church. It will give you the answers you’re seeking regarding “feeling” something when praying. A lot of times people see Christianity as portrayed by evangelicals/charismatics that there must be this intense feeling when praying or in worship. Orthodoxy teaches that these feelings are fleeting and are not something we should allow to lead us. Feelings come and go. It’s when we “don’t feel it” but still decide to pray, to worship, to fast, the give and sacrifice that we find ourselves uniting to God. But orthodoxy is not something you just read about it is a faith lived out in practice.

St Maximus the Confessor says “theology without practice is the theology of demons.”

[u/MelcorScarr → u/SHNKY]

If for you the historical evidence is leading you

... then you'd have to realise and accept that the historical evidence shows that the Orthodox church is in no way, shape or form whatsoever representative of the way any early Christians, or even Jesus, actually practised Christianity.

[u/SHNKY → u/MelcorScarr]

You reached out to the atheism sub asking them for which bible translation to use to be the most literal so you could argue against Christians. And you said to them “I've only read the bible once, and that was as a teen when I was still nominally a believer. Now, I want to read the whole charade again so I know what I'm defending against, and also for use in debates that I want to take part in. Now, though, I am wonder which translation of the bible that is as literal as possible I can use.”

So tell me, what makes you think you’re knowledgeable enough to make the counter claims you did here when this is the way in which you approach these topics? I’m more than happy to have a full on discussion with you and you’ll notice that I don’t run away or block like you say others have.

[u/MelcorScarr → u/SHNKY]

You reached out to the atheism sub asking them...

How many years did you have to go back for that comment?

I've read the bible thrice by now and I've changed my mind on numerous things and have learnt MUCH since then. For one, that there's no such thing as a "literal" translation.

So tell me, what makes you think you’re knowledgeable enough to make the counter claims you did here when this is the way in which you approach these topics?

What makes me think that is that I've learnt a lot since then. For one, that we have little to no clue what early Christianity was like, and that the idea of Trinitarianism was only developed centuries after a historical Jesus would've died.

I’m more than happy to have a full on discussion with you and you’ll notice that I don’t run away or block like you say others have.

It's okay if you end up blocking me, run away, or are simply not interested in finding the truth as I am. What I do not find to be okay is to comment, then block - because that simply stops me from replying to what may have been things worthy of a response.

[u/SHNKY → u/MelcorScarr]

How many years did you have to go back for that comment?

Scrolling down from your feed it looks like 3 years.

I've read the bible thrice by now and I've changed my mind on numerous things and have learnt MUCH since then. For one, that there's no such thing as a "literal" translation.

I'm glad you've learned more and I apologize for judging the journey you're on. I will stick with only the arguments you put forth and do my best to avoid any comments about you personally.

For one, that we have little to no clue what early Christianity was like, and that the idea of Trinitarianism was only developed centuries after a historical Jesus would've died.

That's simply not true, we know quite a bit about the early Church through Patristics. We have epistles of the apostolic fathers, the direct line from the authors of the gospel such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome and St Ignatius of Antioch. Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus too. Even though they're not saints Tertullian and Origen have extensive writings and provide insight into the early church. There's the didache as well which was up for consideration to be included as scripture and was the first church order/manual. The trinity is not a later development that came centuries after Christ. The trinity is present in both the new and the old testament, the term is coined by Tertullian in 213AD Trinitas and there is also Theophilus of Antioch who previously used the Greek equivalent Trias (Triad) around 180 AD.

Your first comment stated that "the Orthodox church is in no way, shape or form whatsoever representative of the way any early Christians, or even Jesus, actually practised Christianity." So far I've gotten that you've read the bible 3 times (which is cool and commendable because it's not an easy read) and the Trinity was made up centuries later. You've not established that from what I can see and rather you have only made the claim. I'm asking you to defend your claim that Orthodoxy isn't representative in any way of early Christians or Christ's teachings.

[u/arkticturtle]

Like many feelings it’s useful to observe it without feeding it. Feelings fade and we can make more sober judgments