Facing the Morally Bad Future

[gomtuu77]

I'm not surprised. The quicker you can justify the No True Scotsman fallacy, the safer one feels about one's faith. That's how I felt every time I heard of well known people leaving the faith. Such people included Bart Ehrman.

On the contrary, I quite wish people would leave and simply be more honest, but that's not the way it generally works. And as far as I know, there is no fallacy in play, as my wondering about whether this person was ever a Christian would have ZERO bearing upon whether they were indeed a Christian. The only thing going on is an assessment on my part as to whether there is sufficient reason for me to affirm their prior claim to be a Christian. It has no genuine bearing on the actual state of their soul, as I don't know what's in their heart. In short, I'm not declaring the person a non-Christian in the sense of knowledge (i.e. justified true belief).

[quote]Would a genuine believer do these things(?):

Being a member of the worship team at church, being a member of a Christian-only band with aspirations to make it big, missionary work, dreams to start a family that lives for God, bible study group member, 'life group' member... every last detail about me relies on the Bible.

Sure, it's quite possible. But that's the point I was making. Both believers and unbelievers do these kinds of things. There are people in all walks of the Church's life that aren't genuine believers, but none of us know for sure who they are...only that they are.

There is so much you can do. Take Drich as an example. He has stated that he's here to clear up any misconceptions about Christianity. That would go a long way to turn someone around and make it easier for them to have faith again.

True, God can use myself or others to help clear the intellectural subterfuge out of his way, but I've never argued against that. What I'm saying is that if someone's will doesn't allow for their faith, then they will never have it. Defeating the sinful will of mankind is a job that only God can do.

I know this is the last thing you want to hear, but I don't have an agenda. My belief in God would be a choice not based on what I want to be true. I'm a free thinker. Show me why scripture is reliable and I'll have no choice but to accept that as truth. This is my only intention in life; to get a hold of what's true.

No, I love to hear that, and I certainly hope it is true, but this is what a lot of people say. More often than not, in my experience, its simply untrue. However, that doesn't stop people from professing it. It's much easier to reject God in the context of maintaing the pretense that one is a "free thinker" and truly following the evidence wherever it leads. I certainly hope that it's a genuine reality for you, and I congratulate you for having that as a value.

Again, I know you don't want to hear this, but I was only after the truth when I began searching for answers to questions that church wasn't providing.

Why wouldn't I want to hear this? I'm sympathetic to the idea that the Church wasn't providing answers. This is pretty typical, unfortunately.

And yes, you're right, we don't like the truth, but that cuts both ways doesn't it? Do you think I converted overnight after finding an 'excuse' to 'finally' have to stop believing? I was training myself up to be an apologist and I was defending the faith across all frontiers. I wasn't going to give up on the truth at all because it was my life, it IS my life (hence this thread).

I doubt you had an overnight conversion, though anything is possible. Typically its a long-term process, at least in my limited experience. How were you training yourself to be an apologist...and why? If you found someone like Bart Ehrman convincing for example, that would be my first major clue that a problem existed. He's been exposed by James R. White, Michael Kruger, and others but it's pretty much the best kept secret in the world. I would recommend listening to the April 10, 2011 Stand to Reason broadcast with Kruger as a beginning, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to read Heresy of Orthodoxy and things like Reinventing Jesus.

Does it seem like someone in my position has done that? I had everything to lose by doing research and knowing for myself what's true. God was my source of life.

Honestly, I have no idea what you've done. There are several possibilities that present themselves readily. One is that you have one or more very significant misunderstandings that have deeply affected your ability to affirmatively believe in God and therefore place your trust in the pardon that's been offered through Christ's sacrifice. Others include the idea that for reasons of upbrining, psychology, or some other unnamed tether; you've always thought of yourself as a Christian and/or even romanticized such a notion. I've seen people spend multiple decades in Church doing what they believed whas genuine Christian service before something exposed them to the truth...whatever that may be. It may have exposed them to the game they were playing or some other such construct that helped them continue in a seemingly honest charade for so long. I don't know, but whatever the case, the structure itself was rotten to the core and they couldn't go on. There are hardcore atheists who will still cry at having to "give up Jesus" because He made them so happy. I'm sure they appeared and even felt themselves like genuine believers. But a genuine believer is one that perseveres. Those who do not, do not belong to God. The heart can not long accept that which the mind rejects and the mind can not long accept that which the heart rejects. Whether mental or heart-felt, human beings do not want to be in subjection to God.

[FallentoReason]

On the contrary, I quite wish people would leave and simply be more honest, but that's not the way it generally works. And as far as I know, there is no fallacy in play, as my wondering about whether this person was ever a Christian would have ZERO bearing upon whether they were indeed a Christian. The only thing going on is an assessment on my part as to whether there is sufficient reason for me to affirm their prior claim to be a Christian. It has no genuine bearing on the actual state of their soul, as I don't know what's in their heart. In short, I'm not declaring the person a non-Christian in the sense of knowledge (i.e. justified true belief).

Well, considering I'm the one who knows best what I believe, I'm telling you I was a reborn Pentecostal Christian equipped with the Holy Spirit. I can't describe to you in words how sincerely I believed, unless you knew me in real life.

Sure, it's quite possible. But that's the point I was making. Both believers and unbelievers do these kinds of things. There are people in all walks of the Church's life that aren't genuine believers, but none of us know for sure who they are...only that they are.

Agreed, and I'm telling you I sincerely believed.

True, God can use myself or others to help clear the intellectural subterfuge out of his way, but I've never argued against that. What I'm saying is that if someone's will doesn't allow for their faith, then they will never have it. Defeating the sinful will of mankind is a job that only God can do.

Theologically, I agree.

No, I love to hear that, and I certainly hope it is true, but this is what a lot of people say. More often than not, in my experience, its simply untrue. However, that doesn't stop people from professing it. It's much easier to reject God in the context of maintaing the pretense that one is a "free thinker" and truly following the evidence wherever it leads. I certainly hope that it's a genuine reality for you, and I congratulate you for having that as a value.

I still feel like you're trying to push me into the box of 'fake Christians'. That's fine, I can't really express through this medium how sincerely I believed, but I'll leave you with this about me: I'm a broke university student. Last year I saved up for ~4 months all my pennies so I could go on that missions trip I mentioned (in the list). I was broke for those 4 months. Didn't have money for fuel, lunch or social activities in general.

How were you training yourself to be an apologist...and why?

I wanted to do what Drich does. Not convince people to believe, because as you sort of said, that's between them and God. They have to take that last leap of faith. I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions they had so that the path to God would be clear. How I was preparing myself? Well funny you ask. It's partly my preparation/research that was giving me not-so-good apologetic material. You see, for anyone to believe they need to understand what the NT is. They are supposedly accurate historical documents, some written by eyewitnesses. Well, that's exactly the sort of proof I needed to be able to show people that this is the way and the truth. Turns out that my 'ideal' view of the NT was only backed up by hearsay from my church. 100% baseless assertions on what they wish was the case, but not supported by a critical view of history.

If you found someone like Bart Ehrman convincing for example, that would be my first major clue that a problem existed. He's been exposed by James R. White, Michael Kruger, and others but it's pretty much the best kept secret in the world. I would recommend listening to the April 10, 2011 Stand to Reason broadcast with Kruger as a beginning, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to read Heresy of Orthodoxy and things like Reinventing Jesus.

Thank you. I'll look into that.

Honestly, I have no idea what you've done. There are several possibilities that present themselves readily. One is that you have one or more very significant misunderstandings that have deeply affected your ability to affirmatively believe in God and therefore place your trust in the pardon that's been offered through Christ's sacrifice.

Yeah I'm willing to accept this is a possibility. With that in mind, let's discuss a bit of history.

Others include the idea that for reasons of upbrining, psychology, or some other unnamed tether; you've always thought of yourself as a Christian and/or even romanticized such a notion. I've seen people spend multiple decades in Church doing what they believed whas genuine Christian service before something exposed them to the truth...whatever that may be. It may have exposed them to the game they were playing or some other such construct that helped them continue in a seemingly honest charade for so long. I don't know, but whatever the case, the structure itself was rotten to the core and they couldn't go on. There are hardcore atheists who will still cry at having to "give up Jesus" because He made them so happy. I'm sure they appeared and even felt themselves like genuine believers. But a genuine believer is one that perseveres. Those who do not, do not belong to God. The heart can not long accept that which the mind rejects and the mind can not long accept that which the heart rejects. Whether mental or heart-felt, human beings do not want to be in subjection to God.

None of this applies to me. I wasn't some sort of double-identity Christian that was a Christian by day and an unclean filthy sinner by night, nor did I have some upbringing that impacted me negatively. My parents are both non-practising Catholics that brought me up as a Catholic. I'm very grateful for the family that I have.

[Zen Badger]

Our pet christians just can't accept the idea that a true believertm could take a critical look at their book of fairytales and say "Hang on".

Ah well

[Epimethean]

Well, there's a reason behind that: If one of them were to take such a critical look and say, "Hang on," that one would be dangerous to the hive-mind, and even were such a one to put the blinders back on and say, "OK, it's cool," the hive mind would always mistrust that cell as a radical.

[gomtuu77]

Well, considering I'm the one who knows best what I believe, I'm telling you I was a reborn Pentecostal Christian equipped with the Holy Spirit. I can't describe to you in words how sincerely I believed, unless you knew me in real life.

Somehow I knew you were going to mention the Pentecostal church. I see this kind of thing a lot from Pentecostalism, as well as the hell fire & brimstone 1950s brand of fundamentalism. This fact alone lends credence to my own view, since the very often manipulative and emotive methods used by the Pentecostal and Assemblies of God denominations often produce deeply emotionally and psychologically powerful attachments to the Church and all the machinations that go along with it. And like you, everyone is totally sincere in their professions, and I certainly take them at their words. They and you were and are quite sincere. On that, we have no disagreement. But whether you were a truly regenerate believer in / follower of Jesus Christ or not, I do not have sufficient reason to affirm in the positive. I can affirm that this is what you truly felt/feel and believe(d), but I cannot go beyond that. Don't let my inability to affirm the reality of your being a Christian be apprehended as any kind of denial as to the strength of your belief or the sincerity with which you held it.

Theologically, I agree.

Theologically? Is there a distinction you'd like to make?

I still feel like you're trying to push me into the box of 'fake Christians'. That's fine, I can't really express through this medium how sincerely I believed, but I'll leave you with this about me: I'm a broke university student. Last year I saved up for ~4 months all my pennies so I could go on that missions trip I mentioned (in the list). I was broke for those 4 months. Didn't have money for fuel, lunch or social activities in general.

You can feel any way you wish, but I would urge you not to put words in my mouth simply because I cannot affirm the truthfulness of your statement. That doesn't mean what you've said is untrue, but it does mean that I do not have sufficient reason to change my position and affirm your proposition in the positive. With all due respect, seeming sincerety of belief looks exactly the same as genuine sincerity. The distinction between the two is made by perseverence. Do they stay or do they fall away? Something can be highly intoxicating and deeply satisifying but still not produce a genuine or lasting (persevering) conversion. This is particularly true within Pentecostalism. My wife experienced this kind of thing when she so-called "received the gift of tongues". She has since matured in her understanding and therefore, her faith. I would not call you a fake Christian, but again, all I would say is that I have little reason to believe that you ever were a genuine Christian. I'm not pushing you into any box, and I would urge you not to push me into any box. Only God knows your heart. I cannot hope to judge such a thing rightly. However, in terms of making my own assessments upon things with which I'm face; I have to make assessments that appear to make sense of the reality before me. What appears to make the msot sense is that you are a person "Hebrews 6:4...who [has] once been enlightened, who [has] tasted the heavenly gift, and [has] shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away...".

I wanted to do what Drich does. Not convince people to believe, because as you sort of said, that's between them and God. They have to take that last leap of faith. I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions they had so that the path to God would be clear. How I was preparing myself? Well funny you ask. It's partly my preparation/research that was giving me not-so-good apologetic material. You see, for anyone to believe they need to understand what the NT is. They are supposedly accurate historical documents, some written by eyewitnesses. Well, that's exactly the sort of proof I needed to be able to show people that this is the way and the truth. Turns out that my 'ideal' view of the NT was only backed up by hearsay from my church. 100% baseless assertions on what they wish was the case, but not supported by a critical view of history.

Who or what is "Drich"??? Faith is not a blind leap, but merely a step of trust on the basis of good reason. This is yet more evidence that tells me there was a significant problem to begin with. What do you mean by a critical view of history? I am not an expert in textual criticism, but just by reading what you've wrote thus far, I can see that there is a woeful lack of information on your part. This isn't surprising, given that you were coming at this from a Pentecostal perspective.

Thank you. I'll look into that.

That's promising. If you're open to the idea that you are suffering from both insufficient information and poor teaching with regard to textual criticism coming from the likes of Ehrman, then I think the broadcast and the books I mentioned can be quite helpful to you. Remember one thing about Ehrman. He studied under and claims to have mentored by none other than Bruce Manning Metzger, perhaps the greatest expert on lower criticism of the Bible to have lived in the 20th century, and yet he came to diametrically opposite conclusions than the ones Ehrman came to. Without deciding who was right or wrong, that by itself should give you pause and reason to look into this much more, far beyond merely the works of Ehrman or others of his ilk. There's nothing wrong with reading his material, so long as you're also open to reading the correctives that debunk and lay waste to his central thesis regarding the corruption of the Bible in transmission to the Church.

Yeah I'm willing to accept this is a possibility. With that in mind, let's discuss a bit of history.

Okay...

None of this applies to me. I wasn't some sort of double-identity Christian that was a Christian by day and an unclean filthy sinner by night, nor did I have some upbringing that impacted me negatively. My parents are both non-practising Catholics that brought me up as a Catholic. I'm very grateful for the family that I have.

This is not what I was referrring to. I was referring to someone who was self-deceived. They were not someone who was double-minded, but someone who had built up a self-deceptive construct to allow them to more easily maintain a power pretense that was untrue because the emotional and psychological nature of that with which they were involved was so deeply satisfying and in some sense, addictive. From their perspective, they were entirely sincere in every way that they could identify, but unknown to them, they were living in a state of complete denial and self-deception. Is it possible that this could describe you? This kind of stuff happens quite a lot within the Church, though to varying degrees.

I am no expert, but I am certainly willing to entertain any questions or challenges you might have. I wish you well in your journey, and I do hope you will consider the pardon offered by God through Christ as a viable way of escape from your condition and mine.

[Reforged]

I doubt that what you believe would shake your friends faith. Even if you had very convincing arguments that's not how faith works.they will continue to believe no matter what.

What will shake their faith is why I don't believe anymore.

You're partly right. I think some might keep doing what they're doing but there's definitely others that would look into what I've said and basically start digging their graves. These are the ones that I fear for.

Maybe, maybe not but every Atheist here has been down this road. The subject pops up with a Theist friend or relative, you calmly put across your view and the reasons why.
At first the conversation goes alright but then you come at a juncture where you've pinned them down, they have no room to manuver other than to get frustrated and end the conversation or admit they believe because they believe.
Continuing the conversation at this point rarely ends well and is often met with hostility because once you have reached this point they are no longer making any attempt to take a reasoned approach focusing instead on defending a belief they've followed all their lives at all costs.
The chances it will end better are slim at best.

[FallentoReason]

Somehow I knew you were going to mention the Pentecostal church. I see this kind of thing a lot from Pentecostalism, as well as the hell fire & brimstone 1950s brand of fundamentalism. This fact alone lends credence to my own view, since the very often manipulative and emotive methods used by the Pentecostal and Assemblies of God denominations often produce deeply emotionally and psychologically powerful attachments to the Church and all the machinations that go along with it. And like you, everyone is totally sincere in their professions, and I certainly take them at their words. They and you were and are quite sincere. On that, we have no disagreement. But whether you were a truly regenerate believer in / follower of Jesus Christ or not, I do not have sufficient reason to affirm in the positive. I can affirm that this is what you truly felt/feel and believe(d), but I cannot go beyond that. Don't let my inability to affirm the reality of your being a Christian be apprehended as any kind of denial as to the strength of your belief or the sincerity with which you held it.

I agree what you say about the Pentecostal church. But see, once again I feel like you're jumping the gun in the hopes of closing me off and leaving me no room in which to show you I was a genuine Christian. Like I've said, you don't know me. I noticed further down you mention tongues. Well I bet you didn't know this about me: I never spoke in tongues. My belief was centred around the Word and a deep understanding of theology, not party tricks like tongues and fainting when the pastor touched your forehead. But, this is actually not my battle. The 'denomination complex' is not my mess to deal with. All you need to know, as much as you wish it was like this, my faith wasn't based on emotions, physical party tricks, a social life, belonging, alterior motives or anything you want to throw at me. I simply wanted to live like Christ and serve but the most noble purpose.

Theologically? Is there a distinction you'd like to make?

You can talk theology with me and I'll know what you mean. Just because I don't currently believe doesn't mean I forgot Christian teachings altogether.

You can feel any way you wish, but I would urge you not to put words in my mouth simply because I cannot affirm the truthfulness of your statement. That doesn't mean what you've said is untrue, but it does mean that I do not have sufficient reason to change my position and affirm your proposition in the positive. With all due respect, seeming sincerety of belief looks exactly the same as genuine sincerity. The distinction between the two is made by perseverence. Do they stay or do they fall away?

Well, there you go. You've not only moved the goalposts but you've removed them from the pitch altogether. Because I don't currently believe it means I was never a Christian. I guess that's ultimately the best way to protect yourself because now it doesn't matter what I say.

Something can be highly intoxicating and deeply satisifying but still not produce a genuine or lasting (persevering) conversion. This is particularly true within Pentecostalism. My wife experienced this kind of thing when she so-called "received the gift of tongues".

Above I've discussed this already. No gimmicks to my faith. Just a desire to walk with Christ.

She has since matured in her understanding and therefore, her faith. I would not call you a fake Christian, but again, all I would say is that I have little reason to believe that you ever were a genuine Christian. I'm not pushing you into any box, and I would urge you not to push me into any box. Only God knows your heart. I cannot hope to judge such a thing rightly.

Then don't. So far all you've tried to do is jump ahead and speculate what my life was mostly like. I'm sorry to say but you're predictions have been off every time.

However, in terms of making my own assessments upon things with which I'm face; I have to make assessments that appear to make sense of the reality before me. What appears to make the msot sense is that you are a person "Hebrews 6:4...who [has] once been enlightened, who [has] tasted the heavenly gift, and [has] shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away...".

Yep, that's a pretty black and white description of me. Note how it explicitly says 'shared in the Holy Spirit'. Yes, I was baptised with the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ.

Who or what is "Drich"??? Faith is not a blind leap, but merely a step of trust on the basis of good reason. This is yet more evidence that tells me there was a significant problem to begin with. What do you mean by a critical view of history?

Drich is one of our resident theists here.

Absolutely not, I agree that faith is not a leap of blind faith but one with good reason. Well, by my screen name you can probably guess what the historical reasons were telling me.

A critical view of history means this: find solid historical reasons to justify your reasoned leap of faith. What are you putting your faith on? A sequence of historical events.

I am not an expert in textual criticism, but just by reading what you've wrote thus far, I can see that there is a woeful lack of information on your part. This isn't surprising, given that you were coming at this from a Pentecostal perspective.

What sort of lack of information?

That's promising. If you're open to the idea that you are suffering from both insufficient information and poor teaching with regard to textual criticism coming from the likes of Ehrman, then I think the broadcast and the books I mentioned can be quite helpful to you. Remember one thing about Ehrman. He studied under and claims to have mentored by none other than Bruce Manning Metzger, perhaps the greatest expert on lower criticism of the Bible to have lived in the 20th century, and yet he came to diametrically opposite conclusions than the ones Ehrman came to. Without deciding who was right or wrong, that by itself should give you pause and reason to look into this much more, far beyond merely the works of Ehrman or others of his ilk. There's nothing wrong with reading his material, so long as you're also open to reading the correctives that debunk and lay waste to his central thesis regarding the corruption of the Bible in transmission to the Church.

You're reading a bit too much into it. My point with Ehrman was simply that he was to me like I am to you. A threat to our faith. But of course, I can see you've already made sure in your mind that Ehrman, like me, is no threat at all, because in a nutshell he wasn't a genuine Christian.

This is not what I was referrring to. I was referring to someone who was self-deceived. They were not someone who was double-minded, but someone who had built up a self-deceptive construct to allow them to more easily maintain a power pretense that was untrue because the emotional and psychological nature of that with which they were involved was so deeply satisfying and in some sense, addictive.

Not me. The Christian life wasn't 'additive' to me. It was the truth, the thing that I would live by because there was no choice. God existing or not isn't based on what I want to be true. It either is or not INDEPENDENT of what I want and thus I wanted to follow Christ because it was what I felt God wanted of me.

From their perspective, they were entirely sincere in every way that they could identify, but unknown to them, they were living in a state of complete denial and self-deception. Is it possible that this could describe you? This kind of stuff happens quite a lot within the Church, though to varying degrees.

No.

I am no expert, but I am certainly willing to entertain any questions or challenges you might have. I wish you well in your journey, and I do hope you will consider the pardon offered by God through Christ as a viable way of escape from your condition and mine.

The day that I am given a reason as to why I can put my faith in the Bible is the day I will accept what Christ has done. This by default has to be through historical means because that is what Christians claim the NT is; literal history. That is a claim that can be tested to an extent. So please, let us talk some history.

---

What will shake their faith is why I don't believe anymore.

You're partly right. I think some might keep doing what they're doing but there's definitely others that would look into what I've said and basically start digging their graves. These are the ones that I fear for.

Maybe, maybe not but every Atheist here has been down this road. The subject pops up with a Theist friend or relative, you calmly put across your view and the reasons why.
At first the conversation goes alright but then you come at a juncture where you've pinned them down, they have no room to manuver other than to get frustrated and end the conversation or admit they believe because they believe.
Continuing the conversation at this point rarely ends well and is often met with hostility because once you have reached this point they are no longer making any attempt to take a reasoned approach focusing instead on defending a belief they've followed all their lives at all costs.
The chances it will end better are slim at best.

Yeah this is so true. I'll definitely have to be cautious with how much I say. I really do care about these people so I don't want some discussion to be damaging to our friendship.

[gomtuu77]

I agree what you say about the Pentecostal church. But see, once again I feel like you're jumping the gun in the hopes of closing me off and leaving me no room in which to show you I was a genuine Christian. Like I've said, you don't know me. I noticed further down you mention tongues. Well I bet you didn't know this about me: I never spoke in tongues. My belief was centred around the Word and a deep understanding of theology, not party tricks like tongues and fainting when the pastor touched your forehead. But, this is actually not my battle. The 'denomination complex' is not my mess to deal with. All you need to know, as much as you wish it was like this, my faith wasn't based on emotions, physical party tricks, a social life, belonging, alterior motives or anything you want to throw at me. I simply wanted to live like Christ and serve but the most noble purpose.

Okay, the first thing that needs to be understood is that, as I have repeatedly said, I don’t know your situation and can’t come to specific judgments about what is true for false within your life or the story you tell. I’ve communicated this a variety of times and do so again specifically for the purpose of avoiding the charges that you continue to level at me. I am not closing you off in any sense. I am closing off my ability to affirm your contention in the positive, but AGAIN, this has no bearing on the veracity of your claims, only my ability and willingness to affirm them.

I understand the aspects of Pentecostalism that you find off-putting, but that’s another mysterious piece of this puzzle. Your story simply doesn’t ring true. It doesn’t fit with the reality of my own experience in any significant sense, nor that of others with whom I’m acquainted. For example, “my belief was centered around the Word and a deep understanding of theology…”, yet you claim to have come out of Pentecostalism. Anyone who’s conversant with protestant Christianity generally understands quite well that the denomination famous for being the most shallow and the most cavalier with their use and abuse of God’s word is the Pentecostal or what has been termed “the charismatic movement”. Their particular sect of Christianity has only been around about 100 years, and while there are many genuine believers within that denomination, it is also the case that the Pentecostal and Assemblies of God denominations are rife with error and heterodoxy. This is why some of your claims seem exceedingly odd. I find it unusual, if not unbelievable that someone whose faith was centered around the Word and a deep understanding of theology would even be located within the Pentecostal church, to say nothing of spending years there. Deep theological understanding and the Pentecostal church are akin to oil and water. They simply don’t mix well at all.

Also, in another thread, I’ve mentioned names of some of the leading scholars in the area of biblical historicity and areas like lower criticism, one of which was a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney and was bishop of North Sydney, but you’re almost entirely unfamiliar with their work. I am no expert, but I am familiar with many of the broader debates inside and outside of the Church regarding the Bible’s veracity, the life of Jesus, etc… and I’m mystified as to how you can have come to genuine and legitimate conclusions regarding the Christian faith without any significant knowledge of the current scholarship. If you are reading people like Ehrman, Harris, and others; then you’re simply filling yourself up with bad information that has been openly and largely debunked. I can understand how their work can undermine one’s faith, if you have no access to the counter-arguments and the genuine exposés that have been done of their work, but as someone who was even modestly passionate about something like apologetics, I’m unable to comprehend or explain your total lack of knowledge of the resources out there that demonstrate the very things you say you need in order to have a solid foundation for faith.

Also, I do not know your situation, beyond what you say, and the things I’ve said regarding Pentecostalism are examples drawn from my own experience and knowledge of what genuinely goes on within the Church, and not only within Pentecostalism. They are suggestions as to what “might” have happened with you. It is very possible that something else happened of which I am entirely unaware, and that’s perfectly fine with me. Those suggestions and stories are not meant to be necessarily predictive or descriptive of your particular circumstance. They are merely possibilities. I have nothing riding on their accuracy in any sense. You behave as if you think I’m somehow troubled by your story, perhaps as though I find it threatening in some sense. I have to say that I’m confused by this point of view. Why would that matter to me at all? My faith is in no way based upon whether you or anyone else happens to believe the same things that I do. Admittedly, I find your story sad, but that’s the extent of my feeling. I’m somewhat perplexed by this implicit notion that I’m finding you somehow threatening. Quite the contrary actually. The longer we talk, the more I’m aware of how loosely your knowledge (i.e. justified true belief) was being held. That is not meant to be an insult in any sense. I honestly feel for you. However, it’s becoming more and more clear that you have been lacking large amounts of information, which is likely what has at least contributed to your overall problem.

Now beyond what I’ve said, I notice that you seem determined for others to affirm your genuine regenerate Christian state. I’ve told you that you’ve given me no reason to do this, but you persist in this direction. You indicate that I find you some sort of threat, that I’m putting you into a box, or that I’m disallowing your point of view as being truthful in some sense. These things are not true. Again, what is true about your situation has nothing to do with whether I can affirm it. Those are separate questions. But let me ask you some questions for clarification’s sake.

There are sort of yes or no questions.

Is it true that a Christian is one who has placed their trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the payment of their sin debt to God and that on the basis of this trust or faith, their ultimate end is an eternity spent with God in Heaven?

Is it true that Christians are those who persevere in the faith and finish the race of life?

Is it true that people who go to church and have been enlightened by the truth, tasted of the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy spirit, and tasted of the goodness of the word of God can and do fall away?

Is it true, from the Christian perspective, that God is all knowing?

Would you say yes or no to these things?

Curious…

[Godscreated]

@ FallentoReason I've been reading the conversation between yourself and gomtuu77. If you don't mind I have a question for you, do you still believe in the God of scriptures? The reason I ask is this, I do not believe I've ever seen you write that you do or do not believe in Him. I am one who believes that a man can choose to walk away from God after he experiences Him, gomtuu77 gave the very reason from Hebrews, the passage says one falls away, it doesn't say one chooses to quite believing. I see it like this, one starts drinking and finds out that it makes them feel good, so they keep it up for the high. Then the hangovers start and every time after drinking one has to deal with the hangover, drink, hangover, drink, hangover, then one says if I stop so do the hangovers. When the one does stop, they no longer have to deal with those hangovers, they know that if they drink again it will feel good, they do not deny the fact they have learned, drinking feels good, they just do not like the hangovers, so drinking is out of their life.
God can be the same way sometimes, when one loses sight of who He really is, one becomes weary and after awhile will either leave the faith or reconnect with who God is.
Another thing I do not know many Christians who claim the Bible to be a history book, I know plenty that know it as the greatest love story ever told, that includes me. Many places that use to be thought of as only existing in the scripture have been found in archaeological digs, and because of things like this some talk about scriptures like a history book. Certainly the scriptures give a time line down through history, however this time line was counting down to the arrival of Jesus and the wonderful gift of salvation through Him for all of mankind.

[FallentoReason]

Okay, the first thing that needs to be understood is that, as I have repeatedly said, I don’t know your situation and can’t come to specific judgments about what is true for false within your life or the story you tell. I’ve communicated this a variety of times and do so again specifically for the purpose of avoiding the charges that you continue to level at me. I am not closing you off in any sense. I am closing off my ability to affirm your contention in the positive, but AGAIN, this has no bearing on the veracity of your claims, only my ability and willingness to affirm them.

Well I get the vibe that you do want to close me off. As soon as I mentioned 'Pentecostal' you think 'ahhh... there's your problem'. I'll discuss further down why you just can't do that without knowing me.

I understand the aspects of Pentecostalism that you find off-putting, but that’s another mysterious piece of this puzzle.

I found them off-putting because as I mentioned before, I was raised Catholic. I saw that that approach made sense as opposed to the physical gimmicks.

Your story simply doesn’t ring true. It doesn’t fit with the reality of my own experience in any significant sense, nor that of others with whom I’m acquainted. For example, “my belief was centered around the Word and a deep understanding of theology…”, yet you claim to have come out of Pentecostalism.

Because with a Catholic mindset I didn't see the point of all the physicality involved with Pentecostalism.

Anyone who’s conversant with protestant Christianity generally understands quite well that the denomination famous for being the most shallow and the most cavalier with their use and abuse of God’s word is the Pentecostal or what has been termed “the charismatic movement”. Their particular sect of Christianity has only been around about 100 years, and while there are many genuine believers within that denomination, it is also the case that the Pentecostal and Assemblies of God denominations are rife with error and heterodoxy. This is why some of your claims seem exceedingly odd.

Yes, odd because I was raised Catholic.

I find it unusual, if not unbelievable that someone whose faith was centered around the Word and a deep understanding of theology would even be located within the Pentecostal church, to say nothing of spending years there. Deep theological understanding and the Pentecostal church are akin to oil and water. They simply don’t mix well at all.

I started going to that church because I met a friend that went there and invited me to his youth group. What attracted me from then on was their desire to get into the Word as opposed to Catholic mass which is rather structured and everyone acts like robots.

Also, in another thread, I’ve mentioned names of some of the leading scholars in the area of biblical historicity and areas like lower criticism, one of which was a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney and was bishop of North Sydney, but you’re almost entirely unfamiliar with their work. I am no expert, but I am familiar with many of the broader debates inside and outside of the Church regarding the Bible’s veracity, the life of Jesus, etc… and I’m mystified as to how you can have come to genuine and legitimate conclusions regarding the Christian faith without any significant knowledge of the current scholarship. If you are reading people like Ehrman, Harris, and others; then you’re simply filling yourself up with bad information that has been openly and largely debunked. I can understand how their work can undermine one’s faith, if you have no access to the counter-arguments and the genuine exposés that have been done of their work, but as someone who was even modestly passionate about something like apologetics, I’m unable to comprehend or explain your total lack of knowledge of the resources out there that demonstrate the very things you say you need in order to have a solid foundation for faith.

The problem with scholars, I personally believe, is that they simply assume they're dealing with historical accounts. Imagine people in the very far future that might find Harry Potter 'manuscripts' everywhere. How do they determine their genre? If they simply assume it's history then they're going to get nowhere in terms of a useful interpretation. Well, I believe that to reconcile the Gospels with known, reliable history of the time one is forced to step back and analyse the Gospels differently, in an allegorical way in fact.

Also, I do not know your situation, beyond what you say, and the things I’ve said regarding Pentecostalism are examples drawn from my own experience and knowledge of what genuinely goes on within the Church, and not only within Pentecostalism. They are suggestions as to what “might” have happened with you. It is very possible that something else happened of which I am entirely unaware, and that’s perfectly fine with me.

In the simplest terms, what happened was that I was really interested in finding the evidence to back up my apologetic arguments and I simply flew too close to the sun and got burnt.

Those suggestions and stories are not meant to be necessarily predictive or descriptive of your particular circumstance. They are merely possibilities. I have nothing riding on their accuracy in any sense. You behave as if you think I’m somehow troubled by your story, perhaps as though I find it threatening in some sense. I have to say that I’m confused by this point of view. Why would that matter to me at all?

From your very first post on this thread you began assuming things about me and even expressing your certainty in these assumptions:

In that context, if you are determined not to believe in God, there is very little that anyone can do, no matter how well intentioned they might be. Richard Weaver wrote a book called Ideas Have Consequences, in which he said something like this...

“Nothing good can come if the will is wrong, and to give evidence to him who loves not the truth, is only to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”

I suspect that this is as true now as it was then, ad I'm certain that it is true in your case as well.

---

My faith is in no way based upon whether you or anyone else happens to believe the same things that I do. Admittedly, I find your story sad, but that’s the extent of my feeling. I’m somewhat perplexed by this implicit notion that I’m finding you somehow threatening.

My suspicions that you feel threatened came from your first post as well. You saw me as a fake Christian with the intent to find an excuse to not believe anymore. So that picture you painted to me sounds like someone that couldn't be further from what a Christian is, which I feel has been your intent this whole talk, to execute the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quite the contrary actually. The longer we talk, the more I’m aware of how loosely your knowledge (i.e. justified true belief) was being held. That is not meant to be an insult in any sense. I honestly feel for you. However, it’s becoming more and more clear that you have been lacking large amounts of information, which is likely what has at least contributed to your overall problem.

I don't find that insulting at all, but rather a relief. I'm here on this forum to seek knowledge that has solid reasons as to why it is true. With that in mind, if you feel like I'm lacking scholars' p.o.v.s then by all means, please share what they have to say and we can discuss that.

Now beyond what I’ve said, I notice that you seem determined for others to affirm your genuine regenerate Christian state. I’ve told you that you’ve given me no reason to do this, but you persist in this direction. You indicate that I find you some sort of threat, that I’m putting you into a box, or that I’m disallowing your point of view as being truthful in some sense. These things are not true. Again, what is true about your situation has nothing to do with whether I can affirm it. Those are separate questions. But let me ask you some questions for clarification’s sake.

Of course I want to affirm my True Believer status that I held before. I don't find it fair that you can discredit me of that on a whim simply because I chose to walk away. Christianity as a whole is still a huge part of my life. 80% of my friends are Christian with the ones that I see on a weekly basis being 100% Christian. Do you think I walked away and threw away what my life is made of simply because deep down inside I never had an intention to know God??? I have Fallen To Reason. As a rational being I cannot simply be oblivious to reasons why Christianity isn't the absolute truth. That would be like knowing your e.g. boat has a hole in it but just having faith you can use it. That's irrational.

Is it true that a Christian is one who has placed their trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the payment of their sin debt to God and that on the basis of this trust or faith, their ultimate end is an eternity spent with God in Heaven?

According to Paul, yes.

Is it true that Christians are those who persevere in the faith and finish the race of life?

According to you, yes.

Is it true that people who go to church and have been enlightened by the truth, tasted of the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy spirit, and tasted of the goodness of the word of God can and do fall away?

Yes.

Is it true, from the Christian perspective, that God is all knowing?

Yes.

---

@ FallentoReason I've been reading the conversation between yourself and gomtuu77. If you don't mind I have a question for you, do you still believe in the God of scriptures? The reason I ask is this, I do not believe I've ever seen you write that you do or do not believe in Him. I am one who believes that a man can choose to walk away from God after he experiences Him, gomtuu77 gave the very reason from Hebrews, the passage says one falls away, it doesn't say one chooses to quite believing. I see it like this, one starts drinking and finds out that it makes them feel good, so they keep it up for the high. Then the hangovers start and every time after drinking one has to deal with the hangover, drink, hangover, drink, hangover, then one says if I stop so do the hangovers. When the one does stop, they no longer have to deal with those hangovers, they know that if they drink again it will feel good, they do not deny the fact they have learned, drinking feels good, they just do not like the hangovers, so drinking is out of their life.
God can be the same way sometimes, when one loses sight of who He really is, one becomes weary and after awhile will either leave the faith or reconnect with who God is.

That's actually a really good analogy. I have no problems in talking theology and discussing the God of the Bible, but I do not currently believe in said God.

With respect to the analogy, I see it as this: people insist that this drink exists and you will get these effects. I have found out for myself that the drink isn't actually a literal thing. They have been misled to believe this drink is a) a real thing and b) that it functions as they say.

Another thing I do not know many Christians who claim the Bible to be a history book, I know plenty that know it as the greatest love story ever told, that includes me. Many places that use to be thought of as only existing in the scripture have been found in archaeological digs, and because of things like this some talk about scriptures like a history book. Certainly the scriptures give a time line down through history, however this time line was counting down to the arrival of Jesus and the wonderful gift of salvation through Him for all of mankind.

I agree. It is just assumed that these pieces of paper were recounting historical events. From the research I've done, not only do I believe Jesus wasn't a real person, but I've actually gone one further and found what they are trying to tell us and what the Gospels really are. This is what I mean by my explanation of the analogy. People keep telling me the Gospels are something but I know for myself now that they have been mislead. The Gospels aren't meant to be taken literally, they do not function that way.