A question for the faithful

[John V]

I was waiting for this one. I knew it would come up.

Was I REALLY saved? I guess that depends on your definition. I think many xtians would say "no" simply because I became an atheist. I mean, after all, how could I turn away if I had REALLY been saved, right?

Sure, many Christians would say that. Maybe they're right. Personally I think either you weren't saved in the first place, or you were and still are saved. you would have loss of reward due to your behavior, but still be saved, "as one escaping through the flames" as Paul puts it.

[Minimalist]

[Baalzebutt]

[quote='Baalzebutt' pid='400460' dateline='1360707942']
I was waiting for this one. I knew it would come up.

Sure, many Christians would say that. Maybe they're right. Personally I think either you weren't saved in the first place, or you were and still are saved. you would have loss of reward due to your behavior, but still be saved, "as one escaping through the flames" as Paul puts it.

By "behavior" I assume you mean my lack of belief.

I guess I don't understand the limiting of rewards part though. I was kind of under the impression that heaven was an all or nothing kind of thing.

[BeefiestName]

I love it when people declare their god to be "above reasoning" - that's pretty convenient. Why all the effort from theists to reason him into existence then?

[formerbaptist]

"Once saved always saved" is IMO a debatable doctrine which Christians can disagree on.

I accept it. The question then is whether you were saved in the first place, which of course I can't answer.

I was waiting for this one. I knew it would come up.

Was I REALLY saved? I guess that depends on your definition. I think many xtians would say "no" simply because I became an atheist. I mean, after all, how could I turn away if I had REALLY been saved, right?

I am right there with you. I grew up and accepted Jesus and was 'saved' and baptized. I was saved from the imaginary hell so I could be part of the imaginary heaven.

For 27 years, I was just as real a Christian as the person next to me in the pew. I tried to do everything the Bible said to do - except for the obvious stuff - I didn't kill children that rebelled or those who didn't keep the Sabbath day holy. But, I wanted God to be happy with me. Finally....I started thinking and reasoning all of this out. I can't believe it took me this long. But, I can't believe how obvious it is that god doesn't exist. Christians think faith is so special - but why would an all powerful god be so mysterious? There is no reason...except that he is fake.

[John V]

By "behavior" I assume you mean my lack of belief.

Not really. Christians don;t have much more in the way of belief. I don't see any mountains moving around.

I guess I don't understand the limiting of rewards part though. I was kind of under the impression that heaven was an all or nothing kind of thing.

Levels of reward in heaven (and of punishment in hell) are pretty clearly taught in the Bible.

[Angrboda]

For 27 years, I was just as real a Christian as the person next to me in the pew. I tried to do everything the Bible said to do - except for the obvious stuff - I didn't kill children that rebelled or those who didn't keep the Sabbath day holy.

This part has always struck me as mysterious. How do we know that killing those children and those Sabbath breakers (and shunning menstruating women) etc, etc, are not the "serious parts" ? If God is indeed mysterious, who are any of you, including Christians who believe in a New Covenant, to tell what are the serious bits and what aren't. Even if you believe that the law no longer applies, the evidence for that position is not 100%. If you really cared about your salvation, you'd take every jot and tittle very seriously, just in case you were wrong about it. Some Jewish traditions preach this, that none of the 613 laws are unimportant and therefore we must scrupulously follow all 613 of them. (A key example where this plays out is the prohibitions on eating certain animals. We can theorize that the reason God commanded this was to disassociate the Jews from the Gentiles, and to prevent unnecessary cases of trichinosis or other food borne disease. But we don't really know the specific reasons that God made it a holy commandment; the text never spells out to do this, "unless you've heated the meat to 140 degrees for at least one minute". God's reason for these mitzvot could be totally unrelated to our hypothesized concerns.) Yet people, Christians especially, think that they are a) unfit to vouchsafe God on the one hand, and yet, b) vouchsafe his every commandment every time they turn around. I think in fact, this indicates either that none of them truly cares about their salvation, or that they're willing to replace the godhead with their own head whenever it suits them. Unless I'm missing something here, probably 99.99% of Christians are the so-called "cafeteria Christians," as they all substitute their wisdom in place of the written law on the flimsiest of pretenses.

[John V]

This part has always struck me as mysterious. How do we know that killing those children and those Sabbath breakers (and shunning menstruating women) etc, etc, are not the "serious parts" ? If God is indeed mysterious, who are any of you, including Christians who believe in a New Covenant, to tell what are the serious bits and what aren't. Even if you believe that the law no longer applies, the evidence for that position is not 100%.

1. The law never applied to Gentiles.

2. Why isn't it 100%? And, you go from "not 100%" here to "the flimsiest of pretenses" at the end of the post. Which is it, and what are your grounds for this position?

[Esquilax]

2. Why isn't it 100%? And, you go from "not 100%" here to "the flimsiest of pretenses" at the end of the post. Which is it, and what are your grounds for this position?

Why is this distinction the important one? Isn't any level of uncertainty unacceptably high when it comes to the fate of one's immortal soul?

[John V]

2. Why isn't it 100%? And, you go from "not 100%" here to "the flimsiest of pretenses" at the end of the post. Which is it, and what are your grounds for this position?

Why is this distinction the important one? Isn't any level of uncertainty unacceptably high when it comes to the fate of one's immortal soul?

No. It would be pretty stupid to turn down eternal happiness which you're 99% sure of because you're pissed about the 1% uncertainty. Biting your nose to spite your face 'nat.