"Ex-Christians"

CrownCaster said:

What is wrong with you? You need counseling.

Click to expand...

what is wrong in what i said????? i was just lettin you know the circumstances in which i will be forced to proclaim Jesus is Lord. i would be moments away from being thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. i would be most probably terrorized and sobbing. i wont have much "free will"

zoe_uu said:

Would this be a 'No True Scotsman' argument? Someone doesn't fit into your experience of what a Christian should be, so therefore they were never a Christian? No offensive, just trying to understand this type of argument.

Click to expand...

Based on what Ryal Kane thumbsup: ) posted a few pages back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Yes, this would be a "No True Scotsman."

Crowncaster's sentiment:
"People that leave Christianity and don't return were never
Christian to begin with."

Christian:
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

[Middle English Cristen, from Old English cristen, from Latin Chr sti nus, from Chr stus, Christ. See Christ.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.




So, the dictionary defines Christian, the root word of Christianity, as following
the religion based on Jesus. No conditions on timeframe, or leaving, just that
you follow it.

sanaa said:

i would be moments away from being thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. i would be most probably terrorized and sobbing. i wont have much "free will"

Click to expand...

This is regarded as being "under duress."

Thanks Fuzzy.

I think we should focus not on our labels (as Christians) or religions, rather, the focus should be on the reason behind the religion, that Jesus died for us and that whoever believes in him and proclaims him Lord will have eternal life. A person could have gone to church for 50 years but can still be a nominal Christian, or a person who has never gone to church but has received Christ in his heart can be a Christian. In the end, it's either whether you decide to keep the gift Christ has given you, or throw it away.

One person comes to mind tho, is Charles Templeton. He was a once collegue of Bill Graham and was a strong evangelist. But later he had Alzheimer disease and questioned whether there is a God at all, then I guess he "deconverted" from Christianity, because of his sufferings.

So for everyone who "deconverted", I suggest you re-read the Book of Job, you may have tons of questions, tons of sufferings, and feel that God is not answering you nor delivering you from harm. But in the end, it all depends on whether you can handle the heat and keep the faith.

Hope I didn't offend anyone Bless you all

jlujan69 said:

My question is this, given this understanding of true conversion in Christianity, is there anyone who meets the above criteria and has then forsaken (or replaced) it for another faith? If so, I'm just wondering why?

Click to expand...

Not me personally, but I know people who meet your criteria and have converted to another faith, or have become agnostic or atheist. Some of them, I have found, have been hurt badly by Christians, which caused them to doubt Christianity, which caused them to leave Christianity. That is not true in all cases. One of my friends was a very devout fundamentalist Christian from age 13 to age 21. Then, she transferred to a school away from home, roomed with a Wiccan, and fell in love with the religion so much that she converted.

Not only is the argument that no true Christian could later join a different religion a "no true Scotsman" argument, it doesn't seem to line up with Scripture. Consider, for instance, the following passage from 2 Peter 2:20-21:

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

Here, Peter is bemoaning those who became Christians ("...escaping the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord...") but have later left Christianity for worldliness ("again entangled therin, and overcome"). So according to Peter, it apparently is possible for such a thing to happen. In fact, he has some dire things to say about it.

Now, I suppose one could argue that Peter isn't talking about "true Christians" here. However, I'd be hesitant to say as such. After all, Peter is using some pretty explicit language here that suggests a real conversion experience had taken place. And considering that this description is being given in what is considered to be the sacrosanct Word of God by most Christians, I think that trying to creatively reinterpret Peter's words to mean something else would be theologically dubious at best.

The way I see it, you cannot define a 'true' christian. Your god will decide that. Also, if I converted from Christianity to Traditional Satanism, then I deconverted from Christianity. Also,to the person who said a while ago that no other gods exists but 'God', I say that as far as i'm concerned, your god doesn't exist and mine do, yet you believe mine don't exist and yours does, so effectively they all exist.

I was raised Christian, but made a daily decision to remain so for many years. I gained much insight from it. In short, it is my spiritual heritage. Today, my relationship with God and my spiritual evolution benfit from things I learned back then. I even look often to some of the teachings of the Bible, mainly Jesus, in my life now. My only issue with Christianity is the exclusivity, elitism, etc., by which I mean not only the "my way or no way" to salvation, but also the militant moralism that seems to plague many religions.

Gaijin ...

Happy belated birthday! I'm sorry I missed it.

Metta,
Jacqui

Namaste jlujan,

thank you for the post and the interesting question.

jlujan69 said:

Every so often, I'll read on these boards how someone was once a Christian and then embraced another faith.

Click to expand...

rather like myself in a sense.

The person speaks of having "de-converted" from Christianity. Well, that got me to thinking about something. In order to "de-convert", one must first have been "converted" at some point in his life.

Click to expand...

i probably wouldn't be using that term.. though it's probably as accurate as any other that i'd use.

is there much of a difference between "coverted" and "accepted"? i'm not really sure in the experience of the spiritual sense.

Now, in Christianity at least, conversion results when one, in his heart, has acknowleged his own sinfulness, desires God's forgiveness, believes Jesus is Lord, and then verbally states this to God in prayer.

Click to expand...

i'm with you so far.

The result is a change in heart readily apparent to that person.

Click to expand...

here's where i'd disagree. the heart does not really change, does it? no, it our consciousness that changes.. in fact, our very perception changes. from the point of view of my paradigm, we would say that the experience of the heart changing is, rather, the experience of the Heart Chakra opening for the first time.

His outlook and priorities change for the better and he tends to drop bad habits and take up good ones.

Click to expand...

i'm not sure if that is so. i realize that this is how it's supposed to work, though my experience has shown me that many people continue on with their bad habits, they simply have the view that they will be forgiven for them.

Before long, this conversion is apparent to others. In other words, people aren't Christian by inheritance or family tradition or otherwise by default.

Click to expand...

i agree with this completely. being born into a religious tradition does not confer on that person allegience to said religion. this is a conscious decision on the part of the individual.

They are converted to Christianity in the aforementioned manner. My question is this, given this understanding of true conversion in Christianity, is there anyone who meets the above criteria and has then forsaken (or replaced) it for another faith? If so, I'm just wondering why?

Click to expand...

well... what can i say? i believe that i would have meet the above listed criteria, at one point in time. perhaps, now, i wouldn't think so... but, perhaps more importantly, is it relevant if i believe that i was a "true" Christian before and am not one now? somehow, i think that it's not.

it often seems much more important for currently self-professed Christians to actually deny me the experience that i had before so that they can maintain their own egoistic projections of what they think Christianity should be.

it all depends on whether you can handle the heat and keep the faith.

Click to expand...

Or on whether you grow into a faith you can respect, or stick with one you are so unhappy with that eventually you turn to atheism, as I've seen happen with so many ex-fundamentalist Christians out there.

Namaste jlujan,

thank you for the post.

jlujan69 said:

The source of that belief on their part has to do with a debate within Christianity of what we call OSAS--once saved, always saved.

Click to expand...

i would mostly agree with that view, however, i don't happen to think that it's a very accurate view.

Hence, if you claim to have "once" been a Christian but no longer are, you really never were. I hope this clears it up a little up for you. Just remember: OSAS or not?

Click to expand...

indeed, that is their position.. however, it's a very illogical position to take. this would, essentially, invalidate the experience of what happened and replace it with the proper verbalization of some formula or creed. this seems to be more of a legalist stance that i'm comfortable with.

i actually don't claim that i was once a Christian.. since that word tends to have many connotations... what i claim was that, whilst i was a church going person and all of that, i had an epiphiany. due to the religious paradigm that i was following, i perceived it to be a Christian experience, i.e. the descending of the Holy Spirit and all of that sort of thing.

obviously some will believe that it was God and others will believe that it was Satan. they are free to believe as they wish, it really doesn't change any thing about what happened, how i experienced it and the subsequent changes in this life of mine.