Communicating with Him

[FallentoReason]

Again you do not understand the fallacy. The fallacy points to not having a structure that defines a Scotsman.

No, the fallacy reflects those that exclude someone from a group because they have done something that the group doesn't approve of. In this case, I have stopped believing in Christ therefore you guys don't want to accept I was ever a 'true Christian' because no 'true Christian' would ever do that.

Christ Himself points out that just because you label yourself a christian or follower, does not make you one.

Are you a Christian?

Indeed but what Christ and James are saying is; it is not works in of themselves. It is the Faith that manifests through works. When you have the faith required then you can not help yourself from doing these works. Not the other way around.

Good explanation. I agree, because this is what I saw happening in my life.

[Drich]

No, the fallacy reflects those that exclude someone from a group because they have done something that the group doesn't approve of. In this case, I have stopped believing in Christ therefore you guys don't want to accept I was ever a 'true Christian' because no 'true Christian' would ever do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Maybe you should read up on what it is you think no true scotsman fallacy is really about. You have failed to meet the criteria for christianity. This according to the fallacy does not meet the requirement for the no true scotsman arguement. (Read the discussion protion of the artical)

Are you a Christian?

That's just it I won't know for sure till the day of my judgement.

Good explanation. I agree, because this is what I saw happening in my life.

But the requirement for a Christian is not a one time showing of this type of faith. it is over a life time. Hence "On that day." that Christ reffers to in Mt 7.. (The day of your judgement) This means you have to live our your life exhibiting this type of faith consistantly. otherwise even a life spent going through the motions of faith will not be enough. Per Mat 7.

[FallentoReason]

Maybe you should read up on what it is you think no true scotsman fallacy is really about. You have failed to meet the criteria for christianity. This according to the fallacy does not meet the requirement for the no true scotsman arguement. (Read the discussion protion of the artical)

I read it, but the section you told me to read sounds exactly like what I said?

I'm confused about this so let's start fresh. From what I see, if someone deconverts then they were never a 'true Christian', correct? If so, then why?

That's just it I won't know for sure till the day of my judgement.

Fair enough. That's very humble of you.

But the requirement for a Christian is not a one time showing of this type of faith. it is over a life time. Hence "On that day." that Christ reffers to in Mt 7.. (The day of your judgement) This means you have to live our your life exhibiting this type of faith consistantly. otherwise even a life spent going through the motions of faith will not be enough. Per Mat 7.

Hmm this is borderline trying to exclude me from the 'true Christian' club.

[Tobie]

So, Drich, you're saying that people who convert to christianity, and therefore haven't constantly lived a christian life, can never be a "true" christian? Surely that means none of the early christians were "true" christians?

[Godscreated]

...

---

He referred to Him as God (remember me when You come into "your" kingdom), in that he knew that anything was possible (referring to the resurrection). Knowing about the virgin birth is an opinion, I do see it being this way though, if He did not know of the virgin birth that would not be held against him. You brought up knowledge in the other post, and this would be an argument for not having had full knowledge. Let me ask you a question and there is no need to reply, have you ever considered the other thief and what he said, I mean really giving a deeper thought to his statement and what it says?

---

---

I didn't say he didn't believe he was God. I'm just showing an exception to your little formula.

As for the other thief, he seems to have doubted that Jesus was the messiah. From my point of view, Jesus should have shown he was the messiah to the guy.

---

---

He did, the other thief recognized it. Now why didn't the other thief?

---

Problem isn't why the thief didn't believe (it doesn't say why anyway). It's why Jesus didn't attempt to explain to him why he's wrong and perhaps get him to believe. Jesus is a hypocrite here because he just lets the guy die in unbelief. He doesn't go "hey buddy, you're wrong. I am the messiah. This blood I'm spilling, it's for your sins. And I'm the messiah because I fulfill this OT prophecy, and this OT prophecy, and performed all those miracles. In fact, here's another miracle for you if you don't believe me. *turns Roman solider into goat*"

Now that doesn't even hold with the Gospel message, the thief that accepted Christ had no problem, so why do you think the other thief did, why didn't the other thief ask the thief that accepted Christ what he saw in Him. Remember the parable about the rich man in hell, asking Abraham to let Lazarus go to his five brothers and warn them of this hell. Abraham told the the rich man that they had Moses and the Prophets and they did believe them, so they want believe Lazarus. Then the rich man asked Abraham to send someone from the dead, and Abraham replied they would not even believe if someone were resurrected. Could be the Son of God realized the thief was not going to believe. As far as the Roman to goat miracle goes, many saw Jesus do miracles and did not believe.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Now that doesn't even hold with the Gospel message, the thief that accepted Christ had no problem, so why do you think the other thief did, why didn't the other thief ask the thief that accepted Christ what he saw in Him. Remember the parable about the rich man in hell, asking Abraham to let Lazarus go to his five brothers and warn them of this hell. Abraham told the the rich man that they had Moses and the Prophets and they did believe them, so they want believe Lazarus. Then the rich man asked Abraham to send someone from the dead, and Abraham replied they would not even believe if someone were resurrected. Could be the Son of God realized the thief was not going to believe. As far as the Roman to goat miracle goes, many saw Jesus do miracles and did not believe.

You say that as if it is all fact. Shame you can't prove it is anything other than a fictional story.

[Godscreated]

Now that doesn't even hold with the Gospel message, the thief that accepted Christ had no problem, so why do you think the other thief did, why didn't the other thief ask the thief that accepted Christ what he saw in Him. Remember the parable about the rich man in hell, asking Abraham to let Lazarus go to his five brothers and warn them of this hell. Abraham told the the rich man that they had Moses and the Prophets and they did believe them, so they want believe Lazarus. Then the rich man asked Abraham to send someone from the dead, and Abraham replied they would not even believe if someone were resurrected. Could be the Son of God realized the thief was not going to believe. As far as the Roman to goat miracle goes, many saw Jesus do miracles and did not believe.

You say that as if it is all fact. Shame you can't prove it is anything other than a fictional story.

Typical atheist statement when you have nothing to contribute, this is especially true with you.

[radorth]

I can't speak for all Christians, but there were times I knew that I knew that I knew. It was those moments which left an abiding faith that God is more real the material world. So in the same way unbelievers can't get rid of doubts altogether, I can't get rid of my faith.

The other way of knowing IMO is that certain scriptures suddenly have new, applicable meaning you were too dumb to appreciate before.

[FallentoReason]

I can't speak for all Christians, but there were times I knew that I knew that I knew. It was those moments which left an abiding faith that God is more real the material world. So in the same way unbelievers can't get rid of doubts altogether, I can't get rid of my faith.

The other way of knowing IMO is that certain scriptures suddenly have new, applicable meaning you were too dumb to appreciate before.

Necropost. There's nothing in the rules that say I can't reply to a necro post, so here I go:

You most certainly can get rid of your faith. First, you can begin by recognising that your warm feelings are a result of your emotional ties with your religion. Nothing more, nothing less. Secondly, if you enlightened yourself about how your religion fails in every way (historically, Biblical composition, morally, philosophically, scientifically (depending on how literal your interpretation is...)) then the only sane option you have left is to let go of your culture's default belief, because who are you to be lucky enough and be born into the right god's culture? Convenient, eh?

Scripture is always warping around what the believer wants it to say. I believe the term is "cherry picking".

[fr0d0]

You have faith in your ignorance of any viable world view FTR. You are logically bereft.