reasonator
New member
John Mortimer
"Repentance with regard to what, exactly?" Sin, and a sin nature
"Acceptance of what or whom?" Jesus as the Son of God and God incarnate, and as the propitiation of that sin -- the once for all final sacrifice
Of course, the above answers were what I believed at the time.
"Devotion to God, or a mental image of God?" Well, this is begging the question, to a degree. But at the time, devotion to what I believed to be the very real God -- creator of the universe and lord over it.
I suspected there would be a lot of Christian posters who would not believe I was a true believer years ago, and that is what has happened in this thread. I suspected it, because I saw it from the other side. There seems to be a refusal to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they say they were a Christian, and understood what that meant, and then had a change of mind later and rejected it. I'm not sure if that is because of a refusal to think someone could hold they same beliefs they do now, and then come to disagree with those beliefs, or if for some other reason.
Nevertheless, I am not all too concerned with whether people believe I was the real deal or not. I know for myself, and ultimately it doesn't affect any future debate or discussion I might have. But I do think it's somewhat sad to take someone at their word, particularly when they offer reasons and evidence of that former belief.
As I said before, I do know that the majority of those people who claim to be Christian do not really know what being a Christian means or entails. They call themselves that because that is how they were raised, or they think they were born into it. If you asked them basic questions about the Bible, or what Jesus' death did for them, they will give you a blank stare. So I understand the suspicion, but when I've taken care to provide the evidence of my legitimate faith and understanding of what I believed then was done for me on the cross, I am still not believed. Oh well.
voltaire
"Do you know what a Christian is? Yes. Someone who is a follower of Christ, who has accepted his free gift of eternal life by letting Jesus be the bearer of that person's sin by being the sacrifice for that sin, and letting his perfect holiness with reference to God's law be imputed to you. You were serious about what? My faith, as opposed to someone who simply calls themselves a Christian without the first clue of what Christianity is or entails. Why? It's what I believed at the time. What exactly did you believe?" Answered above.
"I attended and graduated from seminary with a master's in divinity. Why? Because you thought that was the christian thing to do?" No. why would you assume that? This is an example trying to attribute thoughts to me that are not my own, and hence a bit of a strawman. I went to seminary because It's what I wanted to do, and more importantly, because I thought I had a calling to it from God.
"How would you know if you were the real thing or not? What is a christian?" Do you know if you are really a Christian? In the same way, I knew then that I was really a Christian. I was as sure of my eternal state as you presumably are now. Also, I answered this above in this post.
"Then, why did you reject their reasonings and writings? Because at the time I believed they were wrong. I still believe many atheists are wrong on a great many points. But, as people are want to do at times, I changed, and changed my belief system based on what I believe now is a better understanding of things.Was it that sense of tribalism you referred to earlier? Was it because they you had a very good rational reason to reject them? I thought I did at the time.Did you even seriously consider the merits of their arguments?" I did. I've read numerous apologetic and philosophical works both by theists and nontheists during my time as a Christian and studies as a Christian apologist.
"How can you have a personal relationship with an entity that you have no rational reason to believe even exists? If God does exist and the Bible is true, then you can have a personal relationship with him. If he does not exist, then you cannot. I thought I had a personal relationship with him at the time, and lived my life accordingly. I believe now that I was talking to air.From what I have heard, you never took the time to even consider the rationality for even his existence. I'm not sure what you've been reading, then. I've mentioned already that I studied in a seminary setting, have a master's of divinity in theology, and have considered the major arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and transcendental arguments (and others). I also was among the beginning members of the apologetics club at my seminary. I've also been a presenter at a Christian apologetics conference. So again, I'm not sure how you could say that I've never considered the rationality for God's existence.
Anybody can believe in imaginary friends, that doesn't mean they have a real relationship with the very real creator of the universe. Agreed. And I addressed this above"
"You actually had a sincere relationship with a figment of your imagination." Well, on this point we agree.
People can have very real subjective psychological experiences. Agreed, which is the basis for why I believed I had an experience with Jesus to begin with. Calling those subjective feelings and psychological experiences a real Christian experience is unwarranted though. Again, in this we agree somewhat. Because I no longer believe in a "real Christian experience" in that I believe all Christian experiences are based on subjective, emotional experience, rather than reality. But I assure you, my experience at the time was authentic to me at the time. But because I have changed my mind years later, you refuse to believe my experience could be authentic of any sort.
Town Heretic
"Isn't that a sort of proud position to take on something of that importance? What do you think is proud? that I had some misgivings about modern-day church polity? Or that I had some theological differences with other Christians?
"Right. Now consider this: let's say you're married and you love your wife. You're faithful and trusting and have been since the day you married. Now then, one day I happen by. I'm divorced, but I tell you that I loved my wife as well, relate that I fell in love, that I was wed and devoted and if anything had qualms about the seriousness with which my brethren approached the institution. Then, one day I slept with my secretary. How kindred would you feel?" All that to say you don't feel a kindred connection with my disbelief? I figured that was a given if you are currently a Christian.
"Were you this proud and condescending to the faithful you refused to serve after graduating from seminary? I think I've found your difficulty and the thing that you reserved between you and that experience of God. You poor, rich young ruler you... " I'm not sure where I've been proud or condescending. I'm also not sure how you feel justified in drawing a conclusion that I related to people in my congregation poorly, or with condescension toward them. However, I am proud of my seminary work and my apologetics studies. I don't feel bad about that pride. Speaking of condescending, you are now comparing me to the rich young ruler of the Bible, but instead of riches, it is my pride that I cannot give up in order to be saved? That's about as condescending as it gets.
Bybee
"It is highly likely that you are "one of those people [who have no clue what it's like to "have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," or to experience true repentance and acceptance and devotion.]" Why do you say it's highly likely I am one of "those people"? If I were one of those people, could I describe my ignorant condition in so accurate a way as I have done in describing how "those people" think?
Many people do have a clue as what constitutes Christian belief. Agreed. But you won't give me the benefit of the doubt that I, too, have a clue of what constitutes Christian belief.
I like to believe when someone or something is believable. You, at this point, have a way to go.I've done all that one can reasonably do to convince you and others that I was a genuine follower of Christ, and understood what that meant and what his work on the Cross meant for my sin and eternal salvation. I'm curious, what more could I do to convince you otherwise? not that I will entertain your requests, because as I said before, It really doesn't matter all that much if you think I was a true Christian, or only thought I was a true Christian.
"Repentance with regard to what, exactly?" Sin, and a sin nature
"Acceptance of what or whom?" Jesus as the Son of God and God incarnate, and as the propitiation of that sin -- the once for all final sacrifice
Of course, the above answers were what I believed at the time.
"Devotion to God, or a mental image of God?" Well, this is begging the question, to a degree. But at the time, devotion to what I believed to be the very real God -- creator of the universe and lord over it.
I suspected there would be a lot of Christian posters who would not believe I was a true believer years ago, and that is what has happened in this thread. I suspected it, because I saw it from the other side. There seems to be a refusal to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they say they were a Christian, and understood what that meant, and then had a change of mind later and rejected it. I'm not sure if that is because of a refusal to think someone could hold they same beliefs they do now, and then come to disagree with those beliefs, or if for some other reason.
Nevertheless, I am not all too concerned with whether people believe I was the real deal or not. I know for myself, and ultimately it doesn't affect any future debate or discussion I might have. But I do think it's somewhat sad to take someone at their word, particularly when they offer reasons and evidence of that former belief.
As I said before, I do know that the majority of those people who claim to be Christian do not really know what being a Christian means or entails. They call themselves that because that is how they were raised, or they think they were born into it. If you asked them basic questions about the Bible, or what Jesus' death did for them, they will give you a blank stare. So I understand the suspicion, but when I've taken care to provide the evidence of my legitimate faith and understanding of what I believed then was done for me on the cross, I am still not believed. Oh well.
voltaire
"Do you know what a Christian is? Yes. Someone who is a follower of Christ, who has accepted his free gift of eternal life by letting Jesus be the bearer of that person's sin by being the sacrifice for that sin, and letting his perfect holiness with reference to God's law be imputed to you. You were serious about what? My faith, as opposed to someone who simply calls themselves a Christian without the first clue of what Christianity is or entails. Why? It's what I believed at the time. What exactly did you believe?" Answered above.
"I attended and graduated from seminary with a master's in divinity. Why? Because you thought that was the christian thing to do?" No. why would you assume that? This is an example trying to attribute thoughts to me that are not my own, and hence a bit of a strawman. I went to seminary because It's what I wanted to do, and more importantly, because I thought I had a calling to it from God.
"How would you know if you were the real thing or not? What is a christian?" Do you know if you are really a Christian? In the same way, I knew then that I was really a Christian. I was as sure of my eternal state as you presumably are now. Also, I answered this above in this post.
"Then, why did you reject their reasonings and writings? Because at the time I believed they were wrong. I still believe many atheists are wrong on a great many points. But, as people are want to do at times, I changed, and changed my belief system based on what I believe now is a better understanding of things.Was it that sense of tribalism you referred to earlier? Was it because they you had a very good rational reason to reject them? I thought I did at the time.Did you even seriously consider the merits of their arguments?" I did. I've read numerous apologetic and philosophical works both by theists and nontheists during my time as a Christian and studies as a Christian apologist.
"How can you have a personal relationship with an entity that you have no rational reason to believe even exists? If God does exist and the Bible is true, then you can have a personal relationship with him. If he does not exist, then you cannot. I thought I had a personal relationship with him at the time, and lived my life accordingly. I believe now that I was talking to air.From what I have heard, you never took the time to even consider the rationality for even his existence. I'm not sure what you've been reading, then. I've mentioned already that I studied in a seminary setting, have a master's of divinity in theology, and have considered the major arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and transcendental arguments (and others). I also was among the beginning members of the apologetics club at my seminary. I've also been a presenter at a Christian apologetics conference. So again, I'm not sure how you could say that I've never considered the rationality for God's existence.
Anybody can believe in imaginary friends, that doesn't mean they have a real relationship with the very real creator of the universe. Agreed. And I addressed this above"
"You actually had a sincere relationship with a figment of your imagination." Well, on this point we agree.
People can have very real subjective psychological experiences. Agreed, which is the basis for why I believed I had an experience with Jesus to begin with. Calling those subjective feelings and psychological experiences a real Christian experience is unwarranted though. Again, in this we agree somewhat. Because I no longer believe in a "real Christian experience" in that I believe all Christian experiences are based on subjective, emotional experience, rather than reality. But I assure you, my experience at the time was authentic to me at the time. But because I have changed my mind years later, you refuse to believe my experience could be authentic of any sort.
Town Heretic
"Isn't that a sort of proud position to take on something of that importance? What do you think is proud? that I had some misgivings about modern-day church polity? Or that I had some theological differences with other Christians?
"Right. Now consider this: let's say you're married and you love your wife. You're faithful and trusting and have been since the day you married. Now then, one day I happen by. I'm divorced, but I tell you that I loved my wife as well, relate that I fell in love, that I was wed and devoted and if anything had qualms about the seriousness with which my brethren approached the institution. Then, one day I slept with my secretary. How kindred would you feel?" All that to say you don't feel a kindred connection with my disbelief? I figured that was a given if you are currently a Christian.
"Were you this proud and condescending to the faithful you refused to serve after graduating from seminary? I think I've found your difficulty and the thing that you reserved between you and that experience of God. You poor, rich young ruler you... " I'm not sure where I've been proud or condescending. I'm also not sure how you feel justified in drawing a conclusion that I related to people in my congregation poorly, or with condescension toward them. However, I am proud of my seminary work and my apologetics studies. I don't feel bad about that pride. Speaking of condescending, you are now comparing me to the rich young ruler of the Bible, but instead of riches, it is my pride that I cannot give up in order to be saved? That's about as condescending as it gets.
Bybee
"It is highly likely that you are "one of those people [who have no clue what it's like to "have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," or to experience true repentance and acceptance and devotion.]" Why do you say it's highly likely I am one of "those people"? If I were one of those people, could I describe my ignorant condition in so accurate a way as I have done in describing how "those people" think?
Many people do have a clue as what constitutes Christian belief. Agreed. But you won't give me the benefit of the doubt that I, too, have a clue of what constitutes Christian belief.
I like to believe when someone or something is believable. You, at this point, have a way to go.I've done all that one can reasonably do to convince you and others that I was a genuine follower of Christ, and understood what that meant and what his work on the Cross meant for my sin and eternal salvation. I'm curious, what more could I do to convince you otherwise? not that I will entertain your requests, because as I said before, It really doesn't matter all that much if you think I was a true Christian, or only thought I was a true Christian.
