Total Posts:259|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If I was never a Christian, what was I?

Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:24:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. "Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. "But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. "Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. "And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9"He who has ears, let him hear."

Take your pick which one...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:49:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:24:36 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. "Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. "But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. "Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. "And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9"He who has ears, let him hear."

Take your pick which one...

I... don't understand the point you are making with respect to the topic at hand? And that is one of my favourite parables lol.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:54:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:49:07 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:24:36 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. "Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. "But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. "Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. "And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9"He who has ears, let him hear."

Take your pick which one...

I... don't understand the point you are making with respect to the topic at hand? And that is one of my favourite parables lol.

"In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition."

I'm letting you define yourself. Were you one without deep roots or were you starved out by the weeds?

Theologically speaking, if you were baptized you are forever a Christian because it makes an indelible mark on your soul.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:01:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:54:35 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:49:07 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:24:36 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. "Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. "But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. "Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. "And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9"He who has ears, let him hear."

Take your pick which one...

I... don't understand the point you are making with respect to the topic at hand? And that is one of my favourite parables lol.

"In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition."

I'm letting you define yourself. Were you one without deep roots or were you starved out by the weeds?

That's now how I interpreted the parable, I looked at it from a nurturing perspective, like the one who built his house on sand.

Theologically speaking, if you were baptized you are forever a Christian because it makes an indelible mark on your soul.

A number of Christians I have spoken to do not accept that definition however, but that does bring up an amusing flip side.

So we have one group who accept a definition of Christianity as I had originally posted which means it's logically absurd for a non-believer to claim they were ever a Christian.

And we have another side where everyone is a Christian (regardless of baptism), since they have innate knowledge of God's existence (and non-belief is actually just an suppression of belief)

The poor non-believers/suppressor are stuck for identity, lol.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:16:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

There are people in the world who are not religious but follow religion as a culture only and like to call themselves Christians. They can believe in God or not.
Did you believe in a non-personal God before. If you did you could have been a deist.
If you believed in a personal god, then you were a theist.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?

So would you like to be a Christian again LOL?? Come on man it gets better...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:37:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

Whoever made that "point" proved nothing. There is no such thing as being "touched" by the Holy Spirit, literally. The Holy Spirit "touches" one, whether atheist or anyone else, by the use of means, a medium, which would be the written or spoken word. A person who is now an atheist can very truthfully say that he was once a Christian - and vice versa.


In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

There is a vast difference between (1) believing the Bible to be true and (2) being a Christian.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

A "Christian" would be a person who has:

(1) Heard the gospel of Jesus Christ,
(2) Believed the gospel of Jesus Christ and its ancillary associated facts
(3) Repented of his/her sins
(4) Confessed faith in Jesus Christ
(5) Been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit unto, with a view forward to, the remission of sins
(6) Been thus added by the Father into the church, the body of the saved, and finally
(7) Is striving to faithfully live by the standards and teachings set forth in the NT

I have no idea how many (what percentage) of people on these forums say, "Oh, I'm a Christian", but have not done and are not doing those things. I'm guessing upwards of 80%.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

The logic, however, was faulty.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 10:47:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?

Very well said. Some people study religion and some people practice being Christ-like. Jesus didn't study and write. Like the best of teachers, he found truth in the things around him and made it clear to those for whom it wasn't apparent. Once you've seen the truth in reality itself you can never really deny it again.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 10:53:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:37:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

Whoever made that "point" proved nothing. There is no such thing as being "touched" by the Holy Spirit, literally. The Holy Spirit "touches" one, whether atheist or anyone else, by the use of means, a medium, which would be the written or spoken word. A person who is now an atheist can very truthfully say that he was once a Christian - and vice versa.

I find it hard to accept this. One can learn a lesson and forget it, but once a person recognizes inherent truth it can never be ignored again.

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

There is a vast difference between (1) believing the Bible to be true and (2) being a Christian.

This I agree with totally.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

A "Christian" would be a person who has:

(1) Heard the gospel of Jesus Christ,
(2) Believed the gospel of Jesus Christ and its ancillary associated facts
(3) Repented of his/her sins
(4) Confessed faith in Jesus Christ
(5) Been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit unto, with a view forward to, the remission of sins
(6) Been thus added by the Father into the church, the body of the saved, and finally
(7) Is striving to faithfully live by the standards and teachings set forth in the NT

I see a Christian as someone who strives to emulate Christ.

I have no idea how many (what percentage) of people on these forums say, "Oh, I'm a Christian", but have not done and are not doing those things. I'm guessing upwards of 80%.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

The logic, however, was faulty.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:25:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 10:47:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?

Very well said. Some people study religion and some people practice being Christ-like. Jesus didn't study and write. Like the best of teachers, he found truth in the things around him and made it clear to those for whom it wasn't apparent. Once you've seen the truth in reality itself you can never really deny it again.

And it is completely subjective. What can ya do?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:42:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:25:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/6/2014 10:47:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?

Very well said. Some people study religion and some people practice being Christ-like. Jesus didn't study and write. Like the best of teachers, he found truth in the things around him and made it clear to those for whom it wasn't apparent. Once you've seen the truth in reality itself you can never really deny it again.

And it is completely subjective. What can ya do?

I don't think it's completely objective. When Jesus was walking through the field of wheat and noted that "as you sow, so shall you reap" it may have been his own personal observation, but once he had pointed it out to the others then the truth became a real lesson of nature for them, and not just an observation made by Jesus.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:53:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:42:21 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:25:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/6/2014 10:47:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?

Very well said. Some people study religion and some people practice being Christ-like. Jesus didn't study and write. Like the best of teachers, he found truth in the things around him and made it clear to those for whom it wasn't apparent. Once you've seen the truth in reality itself you can never really deny it again.

And it is completely subjective. What can ya do?

I don't think it's completely objective. When Jesus was walking through the field of wheat and noted that "as you sow, so shall you reap" it may have been his own personal observation, but once he had pointed it out to the others then the truth became a real lesson of nature for them, and not just an observation made by Jesus.

So bad things don't happen to good people. Sorry that's a fail.
Truth is completely subjective.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:00:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:53:46 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:42:21 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:25:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/6/2014 10:47:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?

Very well said. Some people study religion and some people practice being Christ-like. Jesus didn't study and write. Like the best of teachers, he found truth in the things around him and made it clear to those for whom it wasn't apparent. Once you've seen the truth in reality itself you can never really deny it again.

And it is completely subjective. What can ya do?

I don't think it's completely objective. When Jesus was walking through the field of wheat and noted that "as you sow, so shall you reap" it may have been his own personal observation, but once he had pointed it out to the others then the truth became a real lesson of nature for them, and not just an observation made by Jesus.

So bad things don't happen to good people. Sorry that's a fail.
Truth is completely subjective.

I have no idea where you got that from. Bad things happen to everyone. If truth is completely subjective then is it safe to assume that you can fly if you're really willing to accept that you can?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:42:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 10:53:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:37:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

Whoever made that "point" proved nothing. There is no such thing as being "touched" by the Holy Spirit, literally. The Holy Spirit "touches" one, whether atheist or anyone else, by the use of means, a medium, which would be the written or spoken word. A person who is now an atheist can very truthfully say that he was once a Christian - and vice versa.

I find it hard to accept this. One can learn a lesson and forget it, but once a person recognizes inherent truth it can never be ignored again.

Evidently it can happen, unless you are trying to make it a one-way street.

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

There is a vast difference between (1) believing the Bible to be true and (2) being a Christian.

This I agree with totally.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

A "Christian" would be a person who has:

(1) Heard the gospel of Jesus Christ,
(2) Believed the gospel of Jesus Christ and its ancillary associated facts
(3) Repented of his/her sins
(4) Confessed faith in Jesus Christ
(5) Been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit unto, with a view forward to, the remission of sins
(6) Been thus added by the Father into the church, the body of the saved, and finally
(7) Is striving to faithfully live by the standards and teachings set forth in the NT

I see a Christian as someone who strives to emulate Christ.

Broadly, yes. That would be #7 above.

I have no idea how many (what percentage) of people on these forums say, "Oh, I'm a Christian", but have not done and are not doing those things. I'm guessing upwards of 80%.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

The logic, however, was faulty.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:54:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

Interesting... I was an atheist for 17 years before turning into a Christian. Then I had multiple of my atheist friends tell me that I was never a "true atheist" to begin with and I would lose my intelligence or something like that. I'm pretty sure I was an atheist back then. And I'm sure you were a Christian.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:12:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:00:54 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:53:46 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:42:21 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:25:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/6/2014 10:47:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:09:40 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
This is interesting because in my opinion there are two types of interest in Christianity, one being an interest simply in it's theology (like say maybe you agree with it), and two, those who wish to prove the teachings real in their life by applying the principles and living a Christian lifestyle.

If you simply were raised Christian and thought you agreed with it's teaching, maybe you were simply that.....someone who was aware of it's teachings and agreed on a theological level. In that case maybe you never really had the chance to experience living and growing within a spiritual lifestyle. A spiritual "lifestyle" is one in which there is a consistent learning and changing and growing, there is no "at one moment", God steadily molds and purifies your spiritual being.

On the other hand maybe you actually shifted from a theological interest to an interest in living a life pleasing to God and seeking Him regardless of the circumstances, well then in that case all you need to do is be pliable and willing to change your position back to where you left it and dig deeper and see what you need to learn and move forward.

So maybe you were and maybe you weren't a Christian, do you feel you gave it a fair chance to work into your life and bear fruit?

Very well said. Some people study religion and some people practice being Christ-like. Jesus didn't study and write. Like the best of teachers, he found truth in the things around him and made it clear to those for whom it wasn't apparent. Once you've seen the truth in reality itself you can never really deny it again.

And it is completely subjective. What can ya do?

I don't think it's completely objective. When Jesus was walking through the field of wheat and noted that "as you sow, so shall you reap" it may have been his own personal observation, but once he had pointed it out to the others then the truth became a real lesson of nature for them, and not just an observation made by Jesus.

So bad things don't happen to good people. Sorry that's a fail.
Truth is completely subjective.

I have no idea where you got that from. Bad things happen to everyone. If truth is completely subjective then is it safe to assume that you can fly if you're really willing to accept that you can?

What does that have to do with reaping what you sow?
Try to stay on the one horse, the stream is swollen and dangerous.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:28:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:42:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/6/2014 10:53:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:37:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

Whoever made that "point" proved nothing. There is no such thing as being "touched" by the Holy Spirit, literally. The Holy Spirit "touches" one, whether atheist or anyone else, by the use of means, a medium, which would be the written or spoken word. A person who is now an atheist can very truthfully say that he was once a Christian - and vice versa.

I find it hard to accept this. One can learn a lesson and forget it, but once a person recognizes inherent truth it can never be ignored again.

Evidently it can happen, unless you are trying to make it a one-way street.

I guess in a way it really is a one-way street. Inherent knowledge is the kind you get when you fall out of a tree. You're not likely to forget what you learn from that, or be able to deny the truth of gravity.

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

There is a vast difference between (1) believing the Bible to be true and (2) being a Christian.

This I agree with totally.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

A "Christian" would be a person who has:

(1) Heard the gospel of Jesus Christ,
(2) Believed the gospel of Jesus Christ and its ancillary associated facts
(3) Repented of his/her sins
(4) Confessed faith in Jesus Christ
(5) Been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit unto, with a view forward to, the remission of sins
(6) Been thus added by the Father into the church, the body of the saved, and finally
(7) Is striving to faithfully live by the standards and teachings set forth in the NT

I see a Christian as someone who strives to emulate Christ.

Broadly, yes. That would be #7 above.

Well, as Jesus himself made abundantly clear, it's only complicated if you make it. He boiled-down all the teachings of all the prophets into a single requirement - the requirement of love. It's very hard to love someone who you tend to find despicable, but that's what we're supposed to learn to do.

I have no idea how many (what percentage) of people on these forums say, "Oh, I'm a Christian", but have not done and are not doing those things. I'm guessing upwards of 80%.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

The logic, however, was faulty.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 6:46:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

No actually S, is what has been presented to is that you were never a Christian because you lack basic understanding of even simple teachings within the faith. Can people believe things in ignorance? Sure, atheists prove that everyday. As do many religious people.

The issue that I have seen brought to you on many occasions is that you were never a Christian because you never actually studied scripture. This left you vulnerable to all kinds of misinformation with which you have happy devoured ... and it is the atheist education that you have accepted and that drives your belief. You, and indeed many other atheists, are not 'rejecting religion' - you are accepting atheism.

Indeed, you continue to dodge that basic point while being absolutely unable to demonstrate the flaws in major Christian concepts like .... oh, the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

What we instead get, are the standard claims of atheism. These posit, for example, that anyone ACTUALLY READING the Old Testament and following the tangled political mess that Israel had to fight through would immediately leap to the claim of 'genocide' when Israel was forced to defend itself.

The inability to contextually understand the differences between ancient Israel taking necessary (and not uncommon during that era) actions to survive as a Nation, and what Germany did during WWII (oddly ... to Jews) is the result of a deliberate smear in atheist education - and is certainly not a point that thousands of fledging atheists arrived to while pouring studiously over the Bible.

Indeed, it continues to fluster atheists, so deep in the cups of derision, that they remain shocked that there are 'spiritual' interpretations of Genesis, allowing for the full acceptance of sciences like Evolution and the Big Bang.

Such revelations are hardly shocking to anyone knowledgeable of the faith. Being Christian is a choice. And in that choice comes the desire to study and learn and grow closer to Heavenly Father by UNDERSTANDING the lessons he has given us. That you ever made such a choice? Clearly that is not the case.

This need to claim that you somehow were a Christian? Why bother? You are an atheist.

All we ask is that the constant flow of disinformation about faith flowing through people like you, just please stop pretending that it is our religion you reject.

Its atheist education you accept. Not the reality of our faith that you reject, and indeed continue to barely understand.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 6:55:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 6:46:01 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

No actually S, is what has been presented to is that you were never a Christian because you lack basic understanding of even simple teachings within the faith. Can people believe things in ignorance? Sure, atheists prove that everyday. As do many religious people.

The issue that I have seen brought to you on many occasions is that you were never a Christian because you never actually studied scripture. This left you vulnerable to all kinds of misinformation with which you have happy devoured ... and it is the atheist education that you have accepted and that drives your belief. You, and indeed many other atheists, are not 'rejecting religion' - you are accepting atheism.

Indeed, you continue to dodge that basic point while being absolutely unable to demonstrate the flaws in major Christian concepts like .... oh, the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

What we instead get, are the standard claims of atheism. These posit, for example, that anyone ACTUALLY READING the Old Testament and following the tangled political mess that Israel had to fight through would immediately leap to the claim of 'genocide' when Israel was forced to defend itself.

The inability to contextually understand the differences between ancient Israel taking necessary (and not uncommon during that era) actions to survive as a Nation, and what Germany did during WWII (oddly ... to Jews) is the result of a deliberate smear in atheist education - and is certainly not a point that thousands of fledging atheists arrived to while pouring studiously over the Bible.

Indeed, it continues to fluster atheists, so deep in the cups of derision, that they remain shocked that there are 'spiritual' interpretations of Genesis, allowing for the full acceptance of sciences like Evolution and the Big Bang.

Such revelations are hardly shocking to anyone knowledgeable of the faith. Being Christian is a choice. And in that choice comes the desire to study and learn and grow closer to Heavenly Father by UNDERSTANDING the lessons he has given us. That you ever made such a choice? Clearly that is not the case.

This need to claim that you somehow were a Christian? Why bother? You are an atheist.

All we ask is that the constant flow of disinformation about faith flowing through people like you, just please stop pretending that it is our religion you reject.

Its atheist education you accept. Not the reality of our faith that you reject, and indeed continue to barely understand.

Completely unprovoked diatribe.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 9:49:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 6:55:19 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


Completely unprovoked diatribe.

What an educated and well thought out response.

That you would take criticism offered to you and twist it into something never intended by anyone who has given you this feedback, is rather ... dishonest.

When confronted with the reality of what was claimed ... you are a nice victim again.

You were, at best, an ignorant Christian. You do not understand even the basic concepts of Christianity. Why would you claim to have been Christian?

Why do you deny that being Christian is a choice? That at some point if requires ACTUALLY examining the scripture and doctrine and accepting it in understanding? That having failed to do this, it is, at best, disingenuous to claim that one was Christian? And when contrasted with miseducation about religion, which you have accepted (IMHO blindly) the dearth of knowledge about the faith you supposedly claimed is quite clear, correct?

Its called a rebuttal, kiddo.

I am sure you want to be worshipped for your great intellect, but great intellect begins by actually understanding something enough to be able to explain why you disagree with in a way that your opponent can, at the very least, acknowledge is LEGITIMATE reason to disagree.

Example #1:

Disagreeing with Christianity because it supports slavery ... demonstrates a complete failure of Christian teaching on the subject. It also fails to notice that, although a debate once happened about this issue within the faith, the argument was so successful one by the abolitionist side, that no even raises the pretense of Christian support for slavery anymore.

Ergo, disagreeing with Christianity because it supports slavery is ... not an accurate reason to disagree with the faith, correct?

Example #2:

That I disagree with atheism, in sharp contrast, begins by fully accepting the pretense of atheism as a valid inductive argument - albeit one that I believe is less supportable than several major religions. The disagreement with atheism largely arises through the educational process, which is, currently and aptly demonstrated by Ex #1, miseducating people about religion in general. Additionally, the trend toward demonization of religion has grown so acute that it is pushing the limits of acceptable discourse and serving to accomplish nothing intellectually but is stirring up rabble rousers who just need an excuse to misbehave. Its less atheism as a claim that I disagree with than the trend of nihilism that is being spread under the guise of atheism - itself having little actual bearing in the conclusion that there is no God and is sternly rooted in the rejection of religion (which is often poorly understood by the process feeding that rejection).

Great intellect is not demonstrated by having a rebuttal to a claim dismissed as a victimizing diatribe. Indeed, a modicum of basic intellectual ability and fade more integrity about what your religious critics are claiming, would have allowed you to pre address likely points.

Simply put, I was Christian because I believed is a far cry from what Christianity is in reality. Such an obvious point should have been thought through. Just sayin'.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 9:57:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:53:46 PM, bulproof wrote:

So bad things don't happen to good people. Sorry that's a fail.
Truth is completely subjective.

I hesitate to engage save that sometime, comments are so utterly without merit or understanding that they beg correction.

The poster above clearly doe snot understand reasoning.

Truth, in some cases can be 100% true - its called deductive reasoning.

Truth in other cases, can be HIGHLY probable - its called inductive reasoning.

The idea that truth is subjective as a stand alone claim - is called an argument to absurdity.

How the above statement informs the discussion here about what a former atheist who 'left the faith' was?

No idea.

Some atheists have heart wrenching stories of legitimate loss of faith from a position of understanding and acceptance. The loss of legitimate faith is ... crushing. Most atheists, IMHO, did not experience such a thing, and the whimsical claims that, "I believed the Bible was true," ... well, the relative ease with many atheists moved away from faith belies that reality. To believe that God is real, that he is there and cares? To lose that faith can be gut wrenching.

What the above statement has to do with that? I haven't the foggiest. Its claims of 'reasoning' however, simply begs to be corrected.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 10:30:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 9:49:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/7/2014 6:55:19 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


Completely unprovoked diatribe.

What an educated and well thought out response.

Glad you think so too.

That you would take criticism offered to you and twist it into something never intended by anyone who has given you this feedback, is rather ... dishonest.

I was talking generally, and almost everything you said in the previous post was aimed directly at me and from what you think you know about me and not about the substance of the topic itself, which is whether to not it is logical for a non-believer to claim they were ever a Christian given the definition of a Christian that I presented and other people have.

When confronted with the reality of what was claimed ... you are a nice victim again.

You were, at best, an ignorant Christian. You do not understand even the basic concepts of Christianity. Why would you claim to have been Christian?

I beg to differ, but let's move on..

Why do you deny that being Christian is a choice? That at some point if requires ACTUALLY examining the scripture and doctrine and accepting it in understanding? That having failed to do this, it is, at best, disingenuous to claim that one was Christian? And when contrasted with miseducation about religion, which you have accepted (IMHO blindly) the dearth of knowledge about the faith you supposedly claimed is quite clear, correct?

So this a forth definition of 'Christian' I have been given now. Why should I accept your definition over the one the other Christians have provided so far? One has indicated one is a Christian from baptism, another has indicated that living according to Jesus is required, third is the definition I gave in the OP, and now yours, which requires one to have examined scripture.

Its called a rebuttal, kiddo.

Don't call me kiddo.

I am sure you want to be worshipped for your great intellect, but great intellect begins by actually understanding something enough to be able to explain why you disagree with in a way that your opponent can

Yet another unprovoked and unnecessary personal attack

, at the very least, acknowledge is LEGITIMATE reason to disagree.


Example #1:

Disagreeing with Christianity because it supports slavery ... demonstrates a complete failure of Christian teaching on the subject. It also fails to notice that, although a debate once happened about this issue within the faith, the argument was so successful one by the abolitionist side, that no even raises the pretense of Christian support for slavery anymore.

Ergo, disagreeing with Christianity because it supports slavery is ... not an accurate reason to disagree with the faith, correct?

Irrelevant to the topic.

Example #2:

That I disagree with atheism, in sharp contrast, begins by fully accepting the pretense of atheism as a valid inductive argument - albeit one that I believe is less supportable than several major religions. The disagreement with atheism largely arises through the educational process, which is, currently and aptly demonstrated by Ex #1, miseducating people about religion in general. Additionally, the trend toward demonization of religion has grown so acute that it is pushing the limits of acceptable discourse and serving to accomplish nothing intellectually but is stirring up rabble rousers who just need an excuse to misbehave. Its less atheism as a claim that I disagree with than the trend of nihilism that is being spread under the guise of atheism - itself having little actual bearing in the conclusion that there is no God and is sternly rooted in the rejection of religion (which is often poorly understood by the process feeding that rejection).

Completely irrelevant to the topic.

Great intellect is not demonstrated by having a rebuttal to a claim dismissed as a victimizing diatribe. Indeed, a modicum of basic intellectual ability and fade more integrity about what your religious critics are claiming, would have allowed you to pre address likely points.

Irrelevant.

Simply put, I was Christian because I believed is a far cry from what Christianity is in reality. Such an obvious point should have been thought through. Just sayin'.

Address the point at hand clearly and concisely please. On what is logically required for one to be a a Christian, according to the Christian faith.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 10:35:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 6:46:01 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:09:38 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
There was an interesting point made to me about how atheists and non-Christians cannot logically say they were ever a Christian. Since to be a Christian presupposes the biblical teachings are true (you need to be touched by the Holy Spirit, for example).

In that sense, if I believed the bible to be true, then I could logically make that claim, but if I do not, then I cannot.

In that case, what was I (I believed the main tenets of Christianity for most my life)? 'Jesus-Believer?' I don't see a ready made definition.

Following this train if logic though, I can make the claim that nobody at all logically is a Christian, since I make the claim the bible is false. In which case, atheists would need a new word to describe self-proclaimed Christians.

No actually S, is what has been presented to is that you were never a Christian because you lack basic understanding of even simple teachings within the faith. Can people believe things in ignorance? Sure, atheists prove that everyday. As do many religious people.

The issue that I have seen brought to you on many occasions is that you were never a Christian because you never actually studied scripture. This left you vulnerable to all kinds of misinformation with which you have happy devoured ... and it is the atheist education that you have accepted and that drives your belief. You, and indeed many other atheists, are not 'rejecting religion' - you are accepting atheism.

Indeed, you continue to dodge that basic point while being absolutely unable to demonstrate the flaws in major Christian concepts like .... oh, the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

What we instead get, are the standard claims of atheism. These posit, for example, that anyone ACTUALLY READING the Old Testament and following the tangled political mess that Israel had to fight through would immediately leap to the claim of 'genocide' when Israel was forced to defend itself.

The inability to contextually understand the differences between ancient Israel taking necessary (and not uncommon during that era) actions to survive as a Nation, and what Germany did during WWII (oddly ... to Jews) is the result of a deliberate smear in atheist education - and is certainly not a point that thousands of fledging atheists arrived to while pouring studiously over the Bible.

Indeed, it continues to fluster atheists, so deep in the cups of derision, that they remain shocked that there are 'spiritual' interpretations of Genesis, allowing for the full acceptance of sciences like Evolution and the Big Bang.

Such revelations are hardly shocking to anyone knowledgeable of the faith. Being Christian is a choice. And in that choice comes the desire to study and learn and grow closer to Heavenly Father by UNDERSTANDING the lessons he has given us. That you ever made such a choice? Clearly that is not the case.

This need to claim that you somehow were a Christian? Why bother? You are an atheist.

All we ask is that the constant flow of disinformation about faith flowing through people like you, just please stop pretending that it is our religion you reject.

Its atheist education you accept. Not the reality of our faith that you reject, and indeed continue to barely understand.

By the way I received airmax's positive reply to be a judge for the debate, I am still waiting for the challenge.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:19:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 10:35:23 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

By the way I received airmax's positive reply to be a judge for the debate, I am still waiting for the challenge.

There is one more person who must accept, correct?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:20:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:19:57 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/7/2014 10:35:23 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

By the way I received airmax's positive reply to be a judge for the debate, I am still waiting for the challenge.

There is one more person who must accept, correct?

Faithah said it's okay with him if it's okay with you.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 10:30:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/7/2014 9:49:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/7/2014 6:55:19 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


Completely unprovoked diatribe.

What an educated and well thought out response.

Glad you think so too.

That you would take criticism offered to you and twist it into something never intended by anyone who has given you this feedback, is rather ... dishonest.

I was talking generally, and almost everything you said in the previous post was aimed directly at me and from what you think you know about me and not about the substance of the topic itself, which is whether to not it is logical for a non-believer to claim they were ever a Christian given the definition of a Christian that I presented and other people have.

When confronted with the reality of what was claimed ... you are a nice victim again.

You were, at best, an ignorant Christian. You do not understand even the basic concepts of Christianity. Why would you claim to have been Christian?

I beg to differ, but let's move on..

Why do you deny that being Christian is a choice? That at some point if requires ACTUALLY examining the scripture and doctrine and accepting it in understanding? That having failed to do this, it is, at best, disingenuous to claim that one was Christian? And when contrasted with miseducation about religion, which you have accepted (IMHO blindly) the dearth of knowledge about the faith you supposedly claimed is quite clear, correct?

So this a forth definition of 'Christian' I have been given now. Why should I accept your definition over the one the other Christians have provided so far? One has indicated one is a Christian from baptism, another has indicated that living according to Jesus is required, third is the definition I gave in the OP, and now yours, which requires one to have examined scripture.

Its called a rebuttal, kiddo.

Don't call me kiddo.

I am sure you want to be worshipped for your great intellect, but great intellect begins by actually understanding something enough to be able to explain why you disagree with in a way that your opponent can

Yet another unprovoked and unnecessary personal attack

, at the very least, acknowledge is LEGITIMATE reason to disagree.



Example #1:

Disagreeing with Christianity because it supports slavery ... demonstrates a complete failure of Christian teaching on the subject. It also fails to notice that, although a debate once happened about this issue within the faith, the argument was so successful one by the abolitionist side, that no even raises the pretense of Christian support for slavery anymore.

Ergo, disagreeing with Christianity because it supports slavery is ... not an accurate reason to disagree with the faith, correct?

Irrelevant to the topic.

Example #2:

That I disagree with atheism, in sharp contrast, begins by fully accepting the pretense of atheism as a valid inductive argument - albeit one that I believe is less supportable than several major religions. The disagreement with atheism largely arises through the educational process, which is, currently and aptly demonstrated by Ex #1, miseducating people about religion in general. Additionally, the trend toward demonization of religion has grown so acute that it is pushing the limits of acceptable discourse and serving to accomplish nothing intellectually but is stirring up rabble rousers who just need an excuse to misbehave. Its less atheism as a claim that I disagree with than the trend of nihilism that is being spread under the guise of atheism - itself having little actual bearing in the conclusion that there is no God and is sternly rooted in the rejection of religion (which is often poorly understood by the process feeding that rejection).

Completely irrelevant to the topic.

Great intellect is not demonstrated by having a rebuttal to a claim dismissed as a victimizing diatribe. Indeed, a modicum of basic intellectual ability and fade more integrity about what your religious critics are claiming, would have allowed you to pre address likely points.

Irrelevant.

Simply put, I was Christian because I believed is a far cry from what Christianity is in reality. Such an obvious point should have been thought through. Just sayin'.

Address the point at hand clearly and concisely please. On what is logically required for one to be a a Christian, according to the Christian faith.

There isn't even an argument or point in that diatribe of grudge and animosity.

the point is that you were never a Christian, for reasons that are very clearly spelled out. Being intellectually incapable of discerning the difference between, "gee, I thought the Bible was true ... even though I never read it," and someone who has studied scripture, believes in it and what it claims, and lives as if its the truth ... if you cannot grasp thaaa ... wait, that is exactly the point - atheists don't get religion.

The entire premise is that your disagreement with religion is logical because you were ... once Christian. Only you were not - you once assumed that Christainity was true ... until you studied atheism ... and then decided that atheism accurately taught what you thought Christianity was.

What you were before? Ignorant of both Christianity and atheism. Now, you hold some passing semblance of knowledge about what atheism claims and yet are unable to support any of it ... demonstrated a blind and unthinking acceptance of atheism.

What you advocate is a serious affront to real atheists who have lost their faith, who understand what it is to have genuine faith and lose it. Your pretend understanding is just that - imaginary as your magic spaghetti.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:27:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:20:29 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:19:57 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/7/2014 10:35:23 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

By the way I received airmax's positive reply to be a judge for the debate, I am still waiting for the challenge.

There is one more person who must accept, correct?

Faithah said it's okay with him if it's okay with you.

Then I will set it up at my connivence.

I think we'll debate whether or not there are other possible interpretations of Genesis beside a literal seven day interpretation.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:27:58 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:20:29 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:19:57 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/7/2014 10:35:23 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

By the way I received airmax's positive reply to be a judge for the debate, I am still waiting for the challenge.

There is one more person who must accept, correct?

Faithah said it's okay with him if it's okay with you.

Then I will set it up at my connivence.

I think we'll debate whether or not there are other possible interpretations of Genesis beside a literal seven day interpretation.

I don't disagree on that topic. There clearly are other interpretations.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...