Celsus

Hello again Radorth,

Let's not get stuck in your rhetorical cop-outs shall we? The evidence is there for all to see, whether you were or were not making assertions, insinuating dishonesty, etc. I leave it to the people who read this to decide for themselves. If "Ah no, unlike you, I said "I suspect." You merely assert." that is your defense, well, it's a pity poor one. (Do you know that declaring suspicions is essentially the same as insinuating?) But never mind that, here is the interesting bit:
Not quite. You said, "If you were truly a Christian BG, you can never not be one." (Beyelzu has already answered this point.) Essentially, what I did was reverse that sentence to what you implied, i.e. "all the ex-Christians were never truly Christians." Can you see the semantic difference? (Like the way you rephrased yourself thusly, "I said if they were, they still are.") Remember, I have always distinguished between "Christians" and "True Christians" for your benefit.
Haha. Always making guesses about what misinterpreted doctrines I must have held to get me to deconvert. Well stop guessing! I've already given you an enormous hint: Yahweh isn't perfect.

Never mind that, if you say that once a True Christian (tm), they never lose it, even if they declare that they are atheists, then you are shifting the standards once again. Remember John 3:16? Would someone, aged 12, with that much-vaunted "child-like" faith, be saved forever? Think of all those serial killers and mass murderers who snuck in on the once-saved-always-saved-Radorth-clause in heaven. Basically, your doctrine is the ultimate amorality/nihilist clause that Christians often accuse atheists of. But then, that doesn't explain why Paul, pseudo-Paul, John, etc. use so much invective against people renouncing/losing the faith, and condemning them. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Again, this is more than a tad amusing. I outlined clearly where you misquoted Malcolm in my last reply. Go and look it up. Then post an apology to Malcolm in that other thread. In the meantime, your claims that I misquoted you have been supported only by semantic wriggling, rephrasing and qualifiying, and you have been shifting the goalposts ever since.

Joel

Radorth

I doubt that, er, well except the atheist part.

No, it isn't at all to me, probably because I define a Christian as having a certain nature which one cannot simply shed. Amos can decide he is female gorrilla and decide the jungle is the True Church but it won't be so. When one becomes a Christian there is a fundamental change wrought in their spirit by God. (I said that as well if not in the exact same words).

I think the rub is that an atheist who was in fact a Christian cannot decide he's an atheist and just make it so. He remains saved because he is what God made him after he let God have his way. In practice of course, very few Christians who know God as he is do become "atheists." I would argue that is quite rare, but according to you it is not. I can remember believing as a Christian that there was no God. Did that make God go away?


Re Celsus

Good. So you fnally admit you were mind reading, instead of just taking my post at face value. By now folks should know I say what I mean and mean what I say. I clarified later as well, but like my old pastor used to say, "Once a person has decided to judge you, all the truth in the world won't stop them."

I never heard you mention the grace of God in any of the testimony you gave or your cite. That was a bigger hint, to me. Still I have never said you were not ever a Christian. I merely say that you can decide you aren't one, but that won't make your nature go away, or make God not exist. That is why I asked you (or someone) whether they thought Paul's "works of the flesh" were wrong or not. However I do think that in the vast majority of cases that a "true Christian" will not remain an atheist always and in any case will never lose their salvation.

Amazing what problems a little cynicism and speed reading will cause. I do it too.

Rad

Radorth

You can't sneak in on a clause. (More evidence of your legalistic thinking. Not sure how long I can "suspect" you are a legalist.)

You mean like where Paul said "Turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Jesus" ?

Or where Paul said to fully forgive a repentent one "lest he be swallowed up with too much sorrow."?

Or how about Paul's more general statement about various Christians who have stopped producing fruit "... his works will be burned up, though he himself will be saved."?

This would apply well to the true Christian turned atheist. Thanks for the help in recalling it.

Man. What kind of church did you go to? I wouldn't be caught dead there.... er, maybe I would, come to think of it.

Rad

seebs

No, frankly, I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. I'm trying to discover truth. I recognize that I do not have it, and may come to believe something, and later realize it's false - but I have to *try*, because the results are important.

Hmm. It was not my intent to dodge the questions, but some questions are unanswerable. I mean, what if I say "since atheists reject any concept of morality, why don't you just randomly kill people?". That question cannot be answered in a way that I can't spin as "dodging".

Well, as a starter, just because it is always a delight to meet a new person, and why should He be any different?

Beyond that... Because, if He's out there, that's an interesting truth to know, and I *like* to know true things.

Probably a bit of both. It seems to me that several core components of Christian doctrine, such as the idea of a "personal relationship with God", are diametrically opposed to any central authority, and indeed, undermine such authority constantly.

Fair enough. But I doubt we'll get anywhere; you haven't offered me any convincing (or even new) arguments for thinking these things are errors, and I haven't offered you any convincing (or even knew) arguments for thinking they aren't.

Indeed, a horrible thing - and one which, you will note, has since been rejected by most Christians. (Of course, the ones who still like the idea are very *loud*.)

Not "for". "From" something generally called damnation; "by" God.

Why do I believe in this? Because I know that, when I cut myself off from my friends, I feel horrible in ways which very nicely match up with Biblical doctrine about "hell". It seems to me that it is fairly plausible that this could be an outcome of rejecting God, and as such, I would rather avoid it.

I don't see it as a problem. You say "not enough evidence". I say "enough for me". No problem. You search for truth your way, I'll search for it mine.

Radorth

And you will never see anything else, so save your eyes.

And Jesus loves you anyway, ya old crank.

Rad

Radorth

From being judged by your own rules.

From obsessions which control your life, slavery to Lord Self, and living only for yourself

Lust and greed which limit your choices, uncontrollable rage, jealousy, lying, false humility, narcissism, pride, dead, meaningless works, hopelessness and cynicism, blindness to your own hypocrisy, having legitimate need going unmet

That sort of thing.

Rad

Bree

And believing in God will suddenly take away all these things?

Buffman

seebs

Is member Radorth's answers your answers?

Celsus

Hi Radorth

Sigh... Show me how my rephrasing changed the meaning of your original statement. Then you can play your victim card. (remember when I explained to you that supporting your assertions with more assertions isn't an argument?)
Um... Let's see. Biblical Archaeologists love the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You are now admitting that you jumped to your conclusion based on what I didn't write. This is absolutely pathetic. And you know damn well that you've been caught out for your irrititating and patronising insinuations, smears and assumptions.

As is plain to see, you are trying to shift blame onto me, somehow turning your lack of evidence into your argument. (Blame: for not posting every last detail - but if you look at the essay I linked again, I think there's at least some evidence of understanding and accepting grace - do you think that essay represented the extent of my faith?)
Ah. Wouldn't the Bible be so much better if we had you to explain every last qualifier for all those difficult verses? What you've just said here is the cake-eating I started this thread with: that the assurance of salvation, isn't. Does this mean that Christians in evangelical mode are liars? FYI, here is the verse I was thinking of:
Don't mind me if I no longer have the patience to teach you how to tie your own shoelaces.

Joel

Radorth

Not suddenly no, and very slowly if you are listening to legalistic nonsense.

Jerome's "4 states of spirituality.":

1. Love of self for self's sake

2. Love of God for self's sake

3. Love of God for God's sake

4. Love of self (and others) for God's sake.

(As I see it, legalists never get to 4, and hardly ever 3. Atheists are pretty much stuck at 1. Immature Christians go back and forth between 2 and 3)

Rad