Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is the link proving that St. Nicholas was in need of anger management classes:

St. Nicholas Center ::: Bishop Nicholas Loses His Cool

Here is the link proving that Santa Claus has a belly like a bowl full of jelly:

A Visit from St. Nicholas by Clement Clarke Moore

....well, at least we know now why naughty kids don't get Christmas presents on Christmas Eve; Santa's got an anger issue and is just tad bit vengeful. Enjoy the coal, kids!

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually I am trying to keep this as simple as possible...

If once saved? And that someone enters into a mental attitude of habitual carnality?

Since that person is continuously grieving and quenching the Spirit? He has no way (no power) to know he is saved. He will act and behave like an unbeliever. (unbelievers can be very moral)

Some people who are saved .. And have been rejecting and suppressing God's grace for too long? That person can not be discerned from the unbeliever. He will act just like the unbeliever that he would have been if never saved.

These ones will have dropped jaws when they find themselves in heaven.

That is an interesting theory. So the ex-Christians are still Christians, but they have forgotten that fact and behave like non-Christians. That works I suppose.

So what is your definition of "saved"? Can a person who is raised to believe in Christianity be "saved" without having a special moment in time that it seemed to happen? You probably are aware that Eastern Orthodox are usually baptized and chrismated and begin participating in communion as infants, and there are no further ceremonies later in life analogous to the Catholic first communion and confirmation.

 

[Rodan6]

This topic continues to be greatly entertaining!!! My hats off to Cloudyday for the thoughtful guiding of a discussion about "faith" and the logic of it.

I was raised a "Christian", then became an agnostic as I entered my teen years. I remained agnostic for about 15 years as I pondered this question. It seems to me that the "metamorphosis" of faith is indeed a false notion and even more--a false goal. A desire to possess faith is misguided--if this faith lacks a logical connection.

I have been a Christian again for almost 40 years since, and when I look back on this transition, it seems my big breakthrough came when I decided that I didn't really care what others thought about my beliefs. Key, was merely the desire to KNOW THE TRUTH. This was a craving that grew inside, step by step. A great impasse had loomed because I reasoned that no matter what I could learn, I would never find sufficient proof to convince others. Once I got past this, I was able to pursue the subject, trusting my own logical abilities to analyze the material available.

I came to understand the great truth that God is the absolute of love and logic. It would be hopeless to attempt to prove what I have learned to another. But I can testify that truth should not be feared. Many of the Christian tenants embraced today will eventually fall because they fail logical evaluation. As this happens, those invested in "blind faith" will face powerful and tragic tests on that faith. Seek truth, wherever you can find it, and your logical faith will never waver. Those invested in their book written by men are constantly forced to defend what cannot be defended. Instead, we should rejoice in the great discoveries of our time! As we learn new things, we learn more and more about the logical universe God has created, and the wonderful plans He has for us.

 

[GenemZ]

That is an interesting theory. So the ex-Christians are still Christians, but they have forgotten that fact and behave like non-Christians. That works I suppose.

You are failing to understand something essential with true Christianity. Its not joining a club. Its not about learning the program and talking points to conform to a culture of a given church. Sorry, but I know how "true Christianity" probably sounds to you. Yet, it exists.

When its genuine it involves being given real power (grace) to gasp understanding, that without that power, one could not comprehend. Religion gives one a program to follow that one must follow and requires no grace. Religion is not about spiritual enabling (grace). Religion is about human will power and determination to walk in the merits of what ever a religion may demand. Each religion has its own rules and regulations, so that for those who need religion they can hide inside an organized system that gives them a sense of order in an otherwise confusing world. Eric Hoffer referred to this kind of believer as "true believer." Most religion is simply a mild form of benevolent fanaticism.

"The person without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." 1 Cor 2:14

On the other hand... A great deal of what mainstream denominationalism comes up with, comes from poor (or dishonest) scholarship that manipulates the Bible as a means to stimulate known natural tendencies in certain kinds of believers. Anyone who knows the Bible fairly well will consider those teachings to be foolishness as well. What 1 Cor 2:14 speaks of, is a person who is unable to comprehend teachings that are taught soundly and with great accuracy.

So what is your definition of "saved"? Can a person who is raised to believe in Christianity be "saved" without having a special moment in time that it seemed to happen?

Salvation... the moment of salvation.. may go unnoticed. Its when God gives a human spirit (regeneration) and also the gift of the Holy Spirit who will enable us to function spiritually in spite of or natural weaknesses.

When it happened with me. In retrospect I later realized I was oblivious. But, when I reached a point (ten years later) of coming to grips with what God desired of my life, then special moments took place which were given as opportunities for me to choose if I wanted to enter into the Christian way of life.

If I have to explain everything at once I will not have the freedom to tell you what I believe.

You probably are aware that Eastern Orthodox are usually baptized and chrismated and begin participating in communion as infants, and there are no further ceremonies later in life analogous to the Catholic first communion and confirmation.

= Religion

 

[Par5]

...I believe in St. Nicholas; and I believe he lives. St. Nick Lives! (...that needs to be put on a T-shirt).

(Beautiful Orthodox icon rep. of St. Nick)

The Spirit of Christmas, painting by Greg Olsen (Awesome!)

Don't forget to put the flying reindeer on your T-Shirt!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't forget to put the flying reindeer on your T-Shirt!

Did St. Nick own reindeer?

 

[GenemZ]

Did St. Nick own reindeer?

Yes... but he only uses them now for his promo films.

He really uses FedEx, UPS, and Laser.. and sometime USPS.

He also got rid of his elves after he found out they tried to unionize. Its all robotics now.

 

[GenemZ]

2PhiloVoid's Useful Book of the Month (April)
Jesus the Jewish Theologian - by Brad H. Young

Jesus was not a theologian. Jesus is the Theology!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes... but he only uses them now for his promo films.

He really uses FedEx, UPS, and Laser.. and sometime USPS.

He also got rid of his elves after he found out they tried to unionize. Its all robotics now.

Actually, I'm being serious. Did St. Nick own reindeer?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus was not a theologian. Jesus is the Theology!

Thanks for commenting on the cover of the book. While I agree with your statement, it's obvious you haven't read it nor know what it's about. I'd recommend withholding your opinion and your statements until AFTER you know what it is you're addressing and commenting upon.

 

[GenemZ]

Thanks for commenting on the cover of the book. While I agree with your statement, it's obvious you haven't read it nor know what it's about. I'd recommend withholding your opinion and your statements until AFTER you know what it is you're addressing and commenting upon.

Unlike theologians.... Jesus did not need to study the Scriptures. He simply quoted Scripture as a means to verify what he was already thinking. What Jesus ended up doing was teaching scripture with results as if he were a perfect theologian. Come to think about it.. a good many of the tings he taught were not yet found in Scripture, but to become Scripture. That is of what I speak.

To quote what I read on Amazon concerning this book (which looks to be excellent)..

Jesus the Jewish Theologian establishes Jesus firmly within the context of first-century Judaism and shows how understanding Jesus' Jewishness is crucial for interpreting the New Testament and for understanding the nature of Christian faith. Insights from Jewish literature, archeology, and tradition help modern readers place Jesus within his original context. Particular attention is given to the Jewish roots of Jesus' teaching concerning the kingdom of God."​

One of the things about today's Christianity that I have found upsetting is how Christianity has lost its roots and has been deformed into Gentile-ism. Without understanding the Jewishness of the meaning of the Cross much is lost in understanding our "new creation in Christ" roots.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Unlike theologians.... Jesus did not need to study the Scriptures. He simply quoted Scripture as a means to verify what he was already thinking. What Jesus ended up doing was teaching scripture with results as if he were a perfect theologian. Come to think about it.. a good many of the tings he taught were not yet found in Scripture, but to become Scripture. That is of what I speak.

To quote what I read on Amazon concerning this book (which looks to be excellent)..

Jesus the Jewish Theologian establishes Jesus firmly within the context of first-century Judaism and shows how understanding Jesus' Jewishness is crucial for interpreting the New Testament and for understanding the nature of Christian faith. Insights from Jewish literature, archeology, and tradition help modern readers place Jesus within his original context. Particular attention is given to the Jewish roots of Jesus' teaching concerning the kingdom of God."​

One of the things about today's Christianity that I have found upsetting is how Christianity has lost its roots and has been deformed into Gentile-ism. Without understanding the Jewishness of the meaning of the Cross much is lost in understanding our "new creation in Christ" roots.

Ok. So, you're saying you agree with Young's book on the Jewish nature of the teaching of Jesus then, right?

 

[GenemZ]

Ok. So, you're saying you agree with Young's book on the Jewish nature of the teaching of Jesus then, right?

Yes! Absolutely! Jesus was the perfect Jewish Rabbi! He was not teaching Gentiles. He came to the Jews and everything he taught was within the Jewish mind set and thinking.

Some of the things in the NT (that never get translated properly in most English translations) are filled with Jewish ways of humorous and affectionate expression.

In some passages there is a Jewish playfulness and humor being expressed that we are never the wiser for when reading English translations.

The NT is Jewish in its foundational thrust. Revelation has many Jewish references.

The reason I believe Paul went to the Gentiles, was because he was thoroughly Jewish in his Scriptural thinking and was a man with also a Roman cultural background.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes! Absolutely! Jesus was the perfect Jewish Rabbi! He was not teaching Gentiles. He came to the Jews and everything he taught was within the Jewish mind set and thinking.

Some of the things in the NT (that never get translated properly in most English translations) are filled with Jewish ways of humorous and affectionate expression.

In some passages there is a Jewish playfulness and humor being expressed that we are never the wiser for when reading English translations.

The NT is Jewish in its foundational thrust. Revelation has many Jewish references.

The reason I believe Paul went to the Gentiles, was because he was thoroughly Jewish in his Scriptural thinking and was a man with also a Roman cultural background.

All of what you've said above are things I very much agree with, genez. Those are some good points!

 

[Uber Genius]

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.

Of course! Your from the United States right?

The answer is entirely different if you are from Canada. Then any reference to a religious position will require a trigger warning. You will then be charged with a crime (micro aggression) and balled before a hate-crime tribunal where you will be fined$250,000 and legal fees.

Best just keep anything but atheism and communism to yourself if you are from Canada.

 

[Shadow]

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.

No, Not necessarily. Atheists tend to place a very high value on "rational" explanations as the only "legitimate" explanations. Real life is much more complicated and nuanced and the loss of faith/belief can be a very gradual/long-term process of incremental steps. Its only when you think about the totality of the small steps that you realise that you lost your faith, even as on a day-to-day basis you still hold the same identity and think/feel you are the same person. We can't necessarily conjure up perfect reasons for what we do because we don't have a "perfect" capacity for reason. We can use intuition and our emotions too and they are often telling us something valuable even if we aren't 100% sure why.
As an Agnostic, the issue is going to get even more complicated if you are asking questions about what "truth" is and what a "legitimate" argument can be. Loss of faith can be confusing because you don't necessarily "know" what to believe or how to "know" anything for sure in the first place. Give yourself time, trust yourself and grow as a person. The answers will come to you eventually and you don't have to rush it.

 

[MehGuy]

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.

Seems like (weak) atheism really boils down to "I lack a belief in a God because of a lack of sufficient evidence for his existence." A very simple and humble position. There really isn't much to explain.

A fall out from faith can be more complicated than that, but at the end of the day I think it really boils down to what's written above. Could someone be an atheist due to more emotional reasons? It's possible, although I'd have my doubts about them actually being an atheist.

If you're talking about an ex-Christian converting to another theistic religion or a custom spiritual path. More often than not I'd say it boils down to emotional taste. Your Christian path didn't psychologically fulfill you so you must seek a new one that will. More comes down to why something that feels right has more validity than paths that don't.

Sadly a lot of religious beliefs are shallow. Not to say that some religious and spiritual paths are more science friendly than others.

 

[GenemZ]

If a person as a child believed in Jesus Christ? He will be saved.

If he grows older? And learns to be habitually arrogant? Without God's grace he can not know what he needs to about God. He will never know he was saved until after he finds himself in heaven, stunned to be there.

"But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed
to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6​

That was written to the church. To believers! Arrogant believers are devoid of God's enabling power of grace. It even says that God "makes war" against them. They can not possibly know they are saved as long as they do not humble themselves. Its not a formula to learn. Its a heart attitude one directs towards God.

There are people, who when they grew up and compared themselves to other people... perceived themselves as innately superior to others in a way they should not. Because, of that arrogance? God opposes them and they are denied the grace power to even know they are saved. I am not saying that its applicable to anyone here. But there are people who are saved and feel nothing towards God. It might apply.

Jesus had to make it clear that he would lose none of all who believed in him. Made it clear for a good reason. For, He knew that not everyone who comes to him would end up looking like a good Christian.

What do I speak of?

"All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me
I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my
will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who
sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise
them up at the last day." John 6:37-39​

None will become lost. King Saul became jealous and wanted to murder David. He could no longer know he was saved. Its one reason why he sought out the witch of Endor was to try to gain some supernatural guidance. God stopped making Himself knowable to king Saul because Saul became blatantly arrogant. Many others will be more subtle.

Just before he was to die, the prophet Samuel told king Saul that after he died his death of punishment from God, that Saul would end up being with Samuel... Samuel was without a doubt, saved.

 

[gadar perets]

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."

Christianity is not the doorway into the Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ) is. If a person believed in Yeshua and then renounced him to become an unbeliever, he does not need to explain why to mankind, but he will need to explain it to the Father and the Son come Judgment Day. Needless to say, no excuse will be acceptable.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

In my Christian days I once found myself with a lot of free time on my hands, so I decided to read the entire Bible. I found a ton of contradictions. I asked my Christian leaders and they dodged every single question I had. The conclusion was inescapable: either God is unable or unwilling to prevent these errors, and I found neither to be acceptable. The Bible is inspired, God-breathed, the holy word, and... filled to the brim with errors?

It's pretty obvious I chose right because I've found a ton more problems after taking the blinders off.

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.

I agree that is odd.