Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[DogmaHunter]

For God will be found by all that “want” Him.

If someone really "wants" to believe something, he'll find a way to rationalize it.
It's the human psych.

And it's not a rational enterprise.

 

[Not me]

I'm sorry, but this is just delusional and not how reality works.

If a "born again" christian later in life becomes a muslim or an atheist... then continueing to call him a christian makes very little sense.

Jesus said “ye must be born again” this is what makes one a Christian. What happens afterwords does not change the fact the “new birth” has happened. For the “new creation” or the “new birth” is why Christ died. To bring us the new birth, without it no one can live in heaven. For it’s the new birth that makes one capable of living there.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[cloudyday2]

Well ... for what it's worth, intellectual and/or philosophical pursuit of God has not proven profitable for anyone I know personally.

To be honest, even if you "prove" to yourself by logic or philosophy that God exists, that still isn't faith. Even the demons believe, and they have personal experience of God - and it does nothing to "save" them.

I think we sometimes get too caught up in intellectual belief and proofs and such because of the way the Scriptures are translated in English.

Faith in God does require belief, but every person I know that I've gotten into the heart of the process with them - has been an experiential process of coming to know God. Even if a person begins with intellectual belief, they need to progress to KNOWING God through experience.

Beginning this process usually starts with a willingness and sincerely seeking. Usually without challenging God in one's own pride. (God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.) I say usually because sometimes for His own reasons, God does intervene even for those with a prideful approach. But usually openness and humility is fruitful.

Sincerely wanting God and knowing we need him is the best frame for seeking. And once a person has experienced God, especially repeatedly and in different ways, it becomes impossible NOT to believe. It's like trying to believe your mother doesn't exist.

This has been my experience and what I know from others.

The problem with that approach for me is that I went through some psychosis several years ago. There may have been some genuine spiritual experience mixed with the psychosis, but it also may have been entirely psychosis. It wasn't like most people describe psychosis, but each person's psychosis is probably a customized expression of their own personality. ... The strange thing about my experience was the intermittency. Most people with psychosis have difficulty functioning and need medication. For me it was like lightning strike dramatic hallucinations every few weeks and then delusional beliefs were spawned by those hallucinations. But I never missed a day of work, and nobody could tell anything was wrong with me during that year or so.

Lately I have made some tepid attempts to pray, but I always find myself stopping and wondering what's the point. I feel like I've proven Christianity to be malarky, and I don't know what a real God (if any) would want. Of course I look at various members of CF who are better educated and smarter than me and also Christians, and I wonder if I made a mistake in my conclusion that Christianity is malarky.

 

[Not me]

If someone really "wants" to believe something, he'll find a way to rationalize it.
It's the human psych.

And it's not a rational enterprise.

True.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about how one may “know” God exists.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[DogmaHunter]

Jesus said “ye must be born again” this is what makes one a Christian. What happens afterwords does not change the fact the “new birth” has happened. For the “new creation” or the “new birth” is why Christ died. To bring us the new birth, without it no one can live in heaven. For it’s the new birth that makes one capable of living there.

Much love in Christ, Not me

You can believe whatever you want off course.

Nevertheless, the fact remains.... calling a muslim, hindu, scientologist, atheist,... a "christian", simply because he converted and subsequently deconverted from christianity at some point in his life, is completely meaningless.

 

[gaara4158]

Sorry, but imo that conclusion does not follow.
It can also be that evidence exists, but that it simply hasn't been discovered yet.

Sure, it’s not so much a proof as it is a challenge to theists to take on the burden of proof. Even if you can’t disprove premise 2, the best it gets you is to agnostic atheism, not hard atheism.

 

[DogmaHunter]

True.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

It is exactly what you are talking about:

For God will be found by all that “want” Him.

​

We’re talking about how one may “know” God exists.

And the "method" you propose, requires to "want" to believe it.

 

[gaara4158]

So you really don’t want to know if He does exist? Curious.

Much love in Christ, Not me

I do want to know. That’s why I’m interested in hearing if there’s a rebuttal to my argument. That would let me know.

 

[Tom 1]

Step 2 in that proof isn't clear to me. I like your reasoning otherwise. I might change step 1 to say "If God exists and God is relevant to humans then there will be evidence that God exists." Lots of irrelevant Gods can be imagined that would not leave evidence.

Maybe try and break it down a bit, e.g take one of the arguments you favour against belief and break it right down until you fully understand it, decide whether or not you agree with it, then move on to the next one, that might help you to form and express your own ideas more clearly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you really don’t want to know if He does exist?

The problem is that your supposed method of finding out, doesn't lead you to an answer that is distinguishable from self-deception.

 

[Not me]

You can believe whatever you want off course.

Nevertheless, the fact remains.... calling a muslim, hindu, scientologist, atheist,... a "christian", simply because he converted and subsequently deconverted from christianity at some point in his life, is completely meaningless.

There “is” a starting point for a Christian, it is the new birth. This is what makes one a Christian. Once the new birth has happened, it has happened. Can never be undone. This is why Jesus said “you “must” be born again. This is that which makes one a Christian or not.

As stated before if a person who has once been “born again” chooses to live in sin, they will be most miserable. This is why and what is meant when it is written;

1 Corinthians 5:5 (KJV)
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

It may help to realize that the term “false brother or brothers” is used a couple of times, meaning that there will be those that have attached themselves to the Body of Christ but are not really Christian, even though they call themselves such.

For it is written; “you shall know them by there fruits”

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[Sanoy]

I think that if there is a significant reason they should be able to clearly define that reason, but the problem is knowing if it is the actual explanation or an acquired explanation. So for example if you were hungry and you ate two cookies and your gym instructor saw this and asked you why you ate two cookies you might acquire the explanation that you needed the extra calories because of your workout. Really you were just hungry and wanted another cookie but the explanation you acquired, while true, is not why you ate the extra cookie. The specific thought about calories didn't occur until after you were asked.

Depending on what they deconvert into there may be a read-in from what they are moving into, so that you get an explanation more of why they moved in than out. Like lets say you leave one church for another because you really want a free gym. When you are asked you give spiritual reasons for why the new church was better, and list reasons that never really bothered you before about the old church. When you made the choice to go to the new church you had no idea it would be spiritually better, but that gets retroactively applied in the explanation, even though the real explanation is the free gym.

This also happens emotionally. If the church hurt you, or God hurt you, or failed to meet ones personal expectations of trust then one might leave emotionally, then after studying counter apologists one can retroactively acquire or muddle the true explanation. In fact some of the most vitriolic counter apologists are those that deconvert.

It's really tricky knowing whether you are being given the actual explanation or the acquired one.

 

[Not me]

I do want to know. That’s why I’m interested in hearing if there’s a rebuttal to my argument. That would let me know.

If you really do want to know, than all you have to “do” is to do righteousness in all things. For He waits in righteousness, to bless those willing to walk in righteousness. It’s really that simple. But you will have to “do” something to know.

If it helps, will will “know” God exists just like you “know” one and one is two. (by experience)
Let me explain; someone or something told you, one and one is two. You took that information and applied it in your life and than by “experience” you came to “know” it’s true. You will come to “know” the truth of God the same way.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

If you really do want to know, than all you have to “do” is to do righteousness in all things. For He waits in righteousness, to bless those willing to walk in righteousness. It’s really that simple. But you will have to “do” something to know.

If it helps, will will “know” God exists just like you “know” one and one is two. (by experience)
Let me explain; someone or something told you, one and one is two. You took that information and applied it in your life and than by “experience” you came to “know” it’s true. You will come to “know” the truth of God the same way.

Much love in Christ, Not me

1+1=2 is a matter of language, not truth you come to know through experience.

We’ve spoken before about righteousness and you failed to explain to me what that was, so your suggestion that all I have to do is “walk in righteousness” is incoherent gibberish. If you really wanted to let me know, you’d attack premise 2 of my argument.

 

[bhsmte]

Should a person who transitioned from believing Christian to disbelieving ex-Christian be able to clearly explain why this happened? For example, "I became convinced that such and such essential Christian belief is false."

Many atheists will say that the burden of proof is on Christians and non-belief should be the default when the proof is absent. But ex-Christians are a special type of non-believers. They are not blank slates waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them. They have scribbled-out their previous writing, and it seems to me that this scribbling might require some explanation to be considered justifiable.

When I try to ask myself why I don't believe, I can only shrug my shoulders. I just don't believe anymore. I'm not sure why. This bugs me.

In regards to myself, I can clearly explained the process of going from Christian, to not being able to reconcile the theology any longer.

I actually dove into an investigation into the New Testament (motivated to understand it's meaning and it's historicity) and that investigation, caused me to acquire knowledge of the same I did not posses before and it also triggered me to take a deeper look at my belief. At the end of the day, I could no longer reconcile the theology in my own mind, without basically lying to myself, which I don't do well.

I am sure many people have acquired knowledge throughout their life on a variety of topics, that has caused them to take a deeper look at their current positions on certain subjects. Sometimes, that knowledge causes someone to change their position, when they realize they were wrong.

Nothing wrong with that, as I consider it a strength, to be open to learning and to admit; I was wrong. Just as there is nothing wrong with the opposite; a former non believer, reaching a conclusion that they were wrong and they convert to Christianity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There “is” a starting point for a Christian, it is the new birth. This is what makes one a Christian. Once the new birth has happened, it has happened. Can never be undone. This is why Jesus said “you “must” be born again. This is that which makes one a Christian or not.

Gee, I could swear that actually believing in god and the bible, were one of the main requirements to be called a christian.

To call someone a christian while that person does NOT believe in the christian god, jesus, the bible, the NT,..... what is the point?

 

[Not me]

1+1=2 is a matter of language, not truth you come to know through experience.

We’ve spoken before about righteousness and you failed to explain to me what that was, so your suggestion that all I have to do is “walk in righteousness” is incoherent gibberish. If you really wanted to let me know, you’d attack premise 2 of my argument.

I beg to differ, how may I ask did you come to know one and one is two? By faith or experience?

You have stated that you believe righteousness does exist. But you don’t know what it is. So.

“Righteousness” is “that which is right.”

For God waits in righteousness for those willing to walk in that which is right. Go and “do” this and you will “know the truths of God”

Much love, Not me

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me explain; someone or something told you, one and one is two.

My teacher didn't just tell me that. My teacher also demonstrated it.

You took that information and applied it in your life and than by “experience” you came to “know” it’s true

Nope. I knew it was true, due to the demonstration.

You will come to “know” the truth of God the same way.

Not unless you can demonstrate it.

 

[Not me]

Gee, I could swear that actually believing in god and the bible, were one of the main requirements to be called a christian.

To call someone a christian while that person does NOT believe in the christian god, jesus, the bible, the NT,..... what is the point?

Question, what did Jesus say was required for someone to be “born again”

Much love, Not me

 

[DogmaHunter]

Question, how did you come to know one and one is two?

It was explained and demonstrated.

“Righteousness” is “that which is right.”

That which is right.... according to your religion, by any chance?

Go and “do” this and you will “know the truths of God”

First, you need to define what you mean by "righteousness". Because I have a feeling that how YOU define it, will be rather different from how your target audience defines it.... That target audience, being people who don't believe in the god you are asked to demonstrate.