Those of us who were formerly Christians are often informed we didn’t truly know God. We are informed we only dabbled in religion; didn’t really partake of what God was. We are informed we were never saved in the first place. I will highlight two problems with this claim.
1. It is a circular definition. The definition of a person who knows God is alleged to be: “A person who knows God.” Not very helpful. Oh, you can add as many adjectives as you desire, but it still boils down to a circular definition. “A person who truly knows God is a person who truly knows God” is just as circular as “A person who absolutely, positively, unequivocally knows God is a person who absolutely, positively, unequivocally knows God.”
The other day my daughter was working on a paper and asked, “Dad, can you give a good quote regarding Core Democratic Values?” Since this came out of the blue, I was uncertain as to what she was referring. “What are ‘Core Democratic Values?’” I asked; looking for clarification. “Oh, you know,” she responded in frustration, “Values which are both core and democratic.”
Not very enlightening. Yet I have the same conversation with many theists:
Me: I was once a Christian.
Them: Do you still believe there is a God?
Me: No.
Them: Then you weren’t a true Christian in the first place.
Me: Why not?
Them: Because a “true” Christian is defined as one who always believes there is a God.
So we define theist as a person who believes there is a god. I think I already knew that. Are they saying I didn’t really believe in a god? I was always faking it? Odd. Or was I self-deluded in believing in a God. Does a theist really want to go down a route claiming God-believers can be self-deluded? I would think not!
2. For a Christian, this is contrary to the Bible. Yes, I am quite aware the Bible speaks of us abiding in Christ, and his abiding in us. John 15:4-10. However, we cannot stop there. “Interpret Scripture with Scripture”—remember? The various books give specific and observable demonstrations which separate the believers from the non-believers.
Galatians 5:22 provides certain “fruit” or results which should be evident in a person who walks in the spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. And yes, I exhibited all of those fruits. And continue to do so.
Here is why the Christian making this claim, “You were not a true believer” never, EVER goes to Galatians 5. This is key--because they recognize ALL humans are capable of exhibiting these traits! They dare not use this as a measuring stick, as we would all pass. We would all qualify as “walking in the Spirit.” Sure, we don’t exhibit all the traits all the time; but neither does the Christian! If this was the definition, no one is saved. If we use the Christian’s nomenclature (exhibiting some of these fruits some of the time) we are all saved.
Galatians 5:19-21 contrasts the works of the flesh. The works which all of us non-Christians should be partaking in. The things which would prevent us from inheriting the kingdom of God. That list: Adultery, Fornication, Uncleanness, Lewdness, Idolatry, Sorcery, Hatred, Contentions, Jealousy, Outburst of Anger, Selfish Ambitions, Dissensions, Heresies, Envy, Murders, Drunkenness, and “the Like.”
Again, what do we see? Sure, Christians as a whole avoid the adultery, Murder, drunkenness, idolatry, and sorcery. But what about selfish ambition? Is there an American Christian who has not had some selfish ambition? And in looking at the various splits and denominational fractions—need I point out contentions, dissensions and heresies? Never hated someone? Never envied or been jealous? Never angry?
Here the Christian excuses an occasional slip-up with the fact they still have a sin nature. So if you have this straight, Christians have Love, Joy, Peace, etc. some of the time (just like everyone else) and occasionally are selfish, contentious, envious, etc. some of the time (just like everyone else.) No wonder they dare not use Galatians as a determination of god-belief—we would all pass or fail!
Matthew 25:31-46 gives distinctions between believers and non-believers. The Believers helped the poor, needy and prisoners. Again, no Christian, in my recall, every told me I wasn’t a “true Christian” because I failed to conform to Matthew 25. Why not? Because I did!
In fact, I fulfill the requirements of a Bishop/overseer of 1 Timothy 3:1-8! One wife, hospitable, able to teach, good reputation, etc. How come no Christian ever wants to use those as the measuring rod by which I could be determined to be a “true” Christian? Simple—because I would pass!
Or take the simplest test of all—Rom. 10:9. “Believe with your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and God has raised him from the Dead.” Yep—passed that one too. Oh, the person making this claim may argue I didn’t “truly” believe—but the proof is in the pudding. Our beliefs are demonstrated by what we do—not what we say.
If I didn’t believe—do you think I put all that money in the plate out of fooling---what? Those hours spent studying and praying as a gag—for whom? Those days spent helping in the church, teaching, leading, cooking, cleaning—all for some sort of laugh and giggle?
What is it you think I believed?
In conclusion, let me ask this question. I believed there was a God, manifested in three persons, including Jesus (the Son) who took the form of a human, died, and was raised again so that we have the opportunity to have everlasting life. You tell me I didn’t really believe.
O.K., for arguments sake, imagine I became convinced again and re-converted. How would I know I wasn’t deluding myself again? If a person can believe as deeply, honestly and truly as I did—yet be completely fooling themselves—how do YOU know YOU aren’t fooling yourself?
Or, by this claim, must the person concede people who believe in God are very possibly tricking themselves into doing so? How could one tell the difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
**Here is why the Christian making this claim, “You were not a true believer” never, EVER goes to Galatians 5. This is key--because they recognize ALL humans are capable of exhibiting these traits!**
ReplyDeleteYup. I think fundamentalist Christianity is often too black and white, because if followed logically, then only Christians would produce those fruits. And that's clearly not the case at all.
However, I have seen people use this to justify fundamentalism. Granted, it wasn't until I brought up the verse, but it basically came down to the non-Christian doesn't really have the fruits of the Spirit, they're just doing what the world finds to be good. This passage, and these fruits, are relative to whether a person is saved. The fruits are no longer judged on their own merits, but judged based on a person's situation with God.
**Here the Christian excuses an occasional slip-up with the fact they still have a sin nature. **
You know, in reading some of Paul's letters, I'm wondering how much that would fly for him. There are areas where he says that he does things he doesn't want to go. BUt in others, he also specifies that people are dead to sin, have risen with Christ, are hidden in Christ and essentially no longer affected by the sin nature. So wouldn't that mean that Christians are no longer ruled by the sin nature?
Or in 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
And right before it was the idea that whoever sins is of the devil.
Those seem to be pretty blanket statements -- if you're born of God, you don't sin. Period.
O.K., for arguments sake, imagine I became convinced again and re-converted. How would I know I wasn’t deluding myself again?
ReplyDeleteBINGO!
I only lasted two years as a born again Christian in my late teens. That is over thirty years ago. I know that any fundamentalist worth his salt would dismiss me as "never really saved."
However, I am confident that I really wanted to be saved and I really thought that I was saved. Why would I ever want to go down that road again if I could never be sure I was doing it right?
Great point, Dagoods. I believe I've stepped in that tautology on occasion by saying that an ex-believer "really didn't believe". In fact, I do not have a license to judge someone's heart (Matthew 7:1, Romans 2:1, and Paul's quote in Romans that only God can judge the heart).
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about Christians being no different in many aspects doesn't hold water for two reasons.
1) Scripture consistently states that all men have more in common with each other, even with Hitlers and Bin Ladens, than with God.
2) It is the measure of what the person was like to what that person was like afterward that is worth looking at.
3) As far as the sin nature being "gone" it is more like it being invisible. When God sees our heart He sees not us but our Savior. We are covered by Him. 1 John 1:9 tells us that if we say we have no sin then the truth is not in us. Does this contradict 1 John 3:9? No, "for his seed remaineth in him" is our Christ-covering.
**1 John 1:9 tells us that if we say we have no sin then the truth is not in us. Does this contradict 1 John 3:9? No, "for his seed remaineth in him" is our Christ-covering.**
ReplyDeleteExcept I John 3:9 is very action-oriented. Those who sin do not know God, those who do what is right are righteous, and those who do sin are the child of the devil, and all those who do not do right or don't love their brother/sister are not from God. It seems to draw a clear distinction between those who do and do not sin, not a distinction between what is seen or not seen within a person.
Even with God's seed -- I've seen translations that go more with "because the children of God abide in him."
Well said. You really delivered da goods on this one.
ReplyDeleteI really knew God. I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteDoes it appear to y'all that these sentences could both be true to the same person?
DagoodS, forget about what anyone else says about you. What do you say for yourself? Either you knew God - therefore he exists - or you THOUGHT you knew God, but you didn't - and he does not exist. How do you figure you can have it both ways?
People who believe in God CAN INDEED be self-deluded. But those who choose truth will have it. You can't be 100% sure about anyone except yourself, but you can know what you choose.
OSS
ReplyDeleteEven with God's seed -- I've seen translations that go more with "because the children of God abide in him."
Yes, we do, OSS. But we are still going to sin. Do you not sin?
Jenny**People who believe in God CAN INDEED be self-deluded. But those who choose truth will have it. You can't be 100% sure about anyone except yourself, but you can know what you choose.
Very true. We are dead, hopeless sinners who have been given the opportunity to choose life. It is that simple.
OneSmallStep,
ReplyDelete1 John was written to a community in the very early church. (Before the Gospel of John.) The author was struggling with what to do about sin in the church. (Can you believe the struggle of grace/mercy vs righteousness/law has been with us this long in Christianity?)
So initially, recognizing the reality of sin, the author talks of forgiveness of sin (1:9) and how we still sin. (1:8) Yet the author does not want this to become a license to do any wrong, (see 2:1) so he flip-flops a bit to claiming if we truly love God we wouldn’t sin. (3:5-9)
The author then resolves this conflict by explaining there are two types of sin: sin, and “sin unto death.” (5:16-18) The “sin unto death” must be the one that people who don’t truly love God, whereas the regular sin is the one people still do and need forgiveness for.
There are two problems, of course. 1) We don’t know what a “sin unto death” is! Oh, a modern-day apologist would read into it the sin of unbelief—but that fails to take in the community to whom this is written, (and note the author already covered “belief” as a necessary requirement at 5:10-13)
2) This community doesn’t know anything about blaspheme of the Holy Spirit being an unforgivable sin. Not surprising, considering the Johannine community seems to only know the Synoptic accounts by oral transmission.
jennypo,
ReplyDeleteWhy should I forget what others say about me? Shouldn’t I point it out if it is:
1) Incorrect;
2) Circular;
3) Inconsistent with their own claim.
Or don’t you think people care if what they say is wrong, circular and inconsistent?
jennypo: People who believe in God CAN INDEED be self-deluded. But those who choose truth will have it. You can't be 100% sure about anyone except yourself, but you can know what you choose.
Truth has nothing to do with choice. I can choose to believe Elvis Presley is alive—doesn’t make it so. I can choose to believe Aliens are replacing my children with exact duplicates—doesn’t make it so. I can choose to believe the sun rotates around the earth—doesn’t make it so.
Secondly, don’t bother using this argument (you choose what you believe) on a deconvert. We will only look at you in stunned horror. What possible gain did we derive from losing a most-cherished belief? I lost my friends, my community, my extended family, every close relationship I had, and almost my wife and children. I gained—what? No new morals. No license to live a life of riotous living. I still went to church! I didn’t even gain my Sunday mornings/Saturday nights!
You think I would choose that? I can only stand in amazement…
What possible gain did we derive from losing a most-cherished belief?
ReplyDeleteYou gained freedom, freedom of thought, and freedom from metaphysical terrorism justifying oppression, exploitation and parasitism.
I'm not being unsympathetic. I know what it's like to lose everything: In 2002, I lost everything: my house, my career, all my money, my credit rating, my medical insurance, and my family... and not for any noble reason, but just because I didn't get a college degree in the 1980s and because I picked the wrong job a year earlier.
Yes, there is an element of choice. For all you've lost and stand to lose, I still think you chose wisely.
Jim,
ReplyDelete**Yes, we do, OSS. But we are still going to sin. Do you not sin? **
Do I always behave perfectly? No. But I'm pointing out what the author himself is saying, and the clear line he's drawing between the children of God, and the children of the devil, and how we distinguish between the two.
DagoodS,
**(Can you believe the struggle of grace/mercy vs righteousness/law has been with us this long in Christianity?)**
Yup.
**There are two problems, of course. 1) We don’t know what a “sin unto death” is!**
The other problem I would see with this is Paul's line of thinking that the wages of sin is death. Wouldn't all sins then be sins unto death, in a way? Granted, I'm using Paul's letters to explain something that he didn't write.
It just seems like it would've been less confusing if the author said that those in God are not seen to sin by God. As in, they will still sin, but God sees Christ in their place so then God does not see sin. Except the author is making it an action, and saying that those in God do not sin, while those belonging to the devil do. Or even saying in 5:18 that those born of God do not sin, but the one born of God protects them and the evil one does not touch them. But if the a sign of the evil one is sin, and those born of God do sin, then isn't the evil one having some sort of influence?
And yet, if it's only a matter of how it appears to God, then I could be faced with a Christian and non-Christian committing the same sin, and be told that the Christian is not sinning according to God ... but that's not how 1 John is explaining the matter. Rather, those who are Christian are something we should be able to see as well, based on behavior.
Sorry, I know I'm taking this off-track. I find it frustrating when I see many Christians acting no better/worse than non-Christians, and excusing that by saying they're still sinners. Because what I find in the Bible is that Christians are suppose to behave better than non-Christians, consistenly. We're suppose to see a radical change, something that makes the rest of us wildly jealous in wanting their peace/serenity/goodness, and I saw your post touching on that.
**You can't be 100% sure about anyone except yourself, but you can know what you choose.**
Actually, given humanity's amazing ability at self-deception, I'm not sure we can even be 100% sure about ourselves.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteCertainly, we are all free to point out the inconsistencies in others' thinking. But if we do this to the exclusion of building our own thinking, it's a pointless exercise.
I'm not sure how "those who choose Truth will have it" got transformed into "what I choose becomes Truth". Choosing and believing are, as you point out, very different things. Choosing involves opening the door for knowledge; refusing to make judgements until we can say that we know - and we can only know what comes through the door and imposes itself on us, not what we try to convince ourselves of: what we call "believing" mimics the "knowing" but can't stand the "not knowing" stage that has to come first.
You can't choose what you know, but you can choose what you go after. Those who seek TRUTH (regardless of what that looks like to them as they seek) will find TRUTH.
Barefoot Bum said**In 2002, I lost everything: my house, my career, all my money, my credit rating, my medical insurance, and my family... and not for any noble reason, but just because I didn't get a college degree in the 1980s and because I picked the wrong job a year earlier.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is an element of choice. For all you've lost and stand to lose, I still think you chose wisely.
Wisely? Choosing nothing (atheism) is choosing wisely?
2002 was a bad year for Larry. I would not-so-humbly ask, if you lost everything in 2002, what are you still doing here? You lost everything! Did you forget? Or was there something left?
Why should anyone believe someone who is, by their own definition, nothing, and believes in nothing?
I'll help you. There was something left. You did not, in fact, "lose everything". You just came a little closer to where you started. But that you started with something rather than nothing was due to no effort on your part.
Wisely? Choosing nothing (atheism) is choosing wisely?
ReplyDeleteI am an agnostic Jim and I think that BB has chosen wisely. If there is a God, I believe that He endowed us with the ability to reason. Having done so, I have to believe that He prizes intellectual integrity. BB's choice is based on his best application of his God given reason to the evidence available to him. Any God who would not honor that over some chicken-shit game like Pascal's wager isn't worth the time of day.
Choosing nothing (atheism) is choosing wisely?
ReplyDeleteI've chosen truth over hateful and guilt-inducing lies and bullshit. Yes, I call that "wise".
I would not-so-humbly ask, if you lost everything in 2002, what are you still doing here? You lost everything!
It's an expression, Jim. As a native English speaker, I do employ idiomatic, metaphorical language from time to time.
I'll take up a collection for a glass navel so you can watch TV.
A few things to clear up,
ReplyDeleteI agree, The Barefoot Bum that I chose wisely. Although a strong argument could be made that I had no choice. For whatever reason one wants to claim, part of my make-up includes a desire to make the best determination of what to do, based upon the knowledge I have, coupled with a realistic view that determination may not be what I would like to do.
From what I anticipated (luckily incorrectly) would happen to me upon deconversion…well…no person would possibly make that choice. Happily, now looking at it from this side, I can see the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Jim Jordan, while you may not agree with the term “chose wisely” I have yet to determine what material you utilized in making any choice at all! I can’t figure out what you used when you claimed you tried to prove the Bible wrong from the point of a skeptic, I can’t figure out what study you have done in numerous areas. Frankly, your entire “choice” events are quite murky to me.
All I have seen is claim to an instance of sleep paralysis coupled with hallucination which you translated to a conversion experience. Here and Here
Dagoods said**Jim Jordan, while you may not agree with the term “chose wisely” I have yet to determine what material you utilized in making any choice at all!
ReplyDeleteAs a deconvert I would assume you would know the difference between intellectual assent and a conversion experience, since you claim to have had one.
I was a skeptic who had to admit over time that my questions were easily answered and not silver bullets as I'd thought they were. My later positions are the ones I have taken in debating you. The evidence for my choice is right there in the dialog.
For whatever reason one wants to claim, part of my make-up includes a desire to make the best determination of what to do, based upon the knowledge I have, coupled with a realistic view that determination may not be what I would like to do.
Very courtroomish, and it works there. "Based upon the knowledge I have" is intriguing. In a court case you might have evidence right in front of you with DNA of the real perpetrator of the crime. But since it's 1950, say, and you don't have the technology to use that information, you sentence the wrong guy to die. Did you do the right thing? According to your statement, you did. What if that guy was you?
"Based upon the knowledge I have" - another point is that the premise of all knowledge is how we got here in the first place. Do you really believe that we did not come from intelligence, a Logos of some kind, but rather we rose from nothing with no plan? Is that the best you can do based on the knowledge you have?
I am convinced of theism (intellectual assent). I am also convinced that Jesus is who He says He is (I'm a convert). There is not one doubt I have that scares me.
Vinny wrote**BB's choice is based on his best application of his God given reason to the evidence available to him.
ReplyDeleteThat is very ironic. I think God will understand.
BB - I was angry when I posted that. I have a rule that I shouldn't post on atheist websites when I am angry - but I keep forgetting. Sorry.
Err…if I don’t use the knowledge I have…what other knowledge do you propose I use? Based upon past experience, I see we know more (maybe not a lot in relation to what could be known, but still more) now then we did 10 years ago regarding the world around us. I see that we knew more 10 years ago then 10 years before that. And more than 10 years before that.
ReplyDeleteIt seems quite reasonable, in this review, to surmise we will know more 10 years from now than we do now. Further, I have learned a great deal of information over the past few years. And as I look over the course of my life, it seems just as reasonable to assume I will learn more in the next few years.
If you are saying I should use the information humans won’t know for another 100 years—this is impossible. Once I know it (to use it) it is no longer information humans won’t know for 100 years, ‘cause I know it now! If you are saying it is information available now, but I just don’t know it yet—again, how can I use it when, by definition it is something I don’t know?
And in the course of my obtaining information, I discuss with theists to see what new information I can glean. Perhaps there IS some knowledge out there I have not considered which would change my mind. I will say, gray statements like, “I was a skeptic who had to admit over time that my questions were easily answered and not silver bullets as I'd thought they were” and “My later positions are the ones I have taken in debating you” and “The evidence for my choice is right there in the dialog” is not very helpful. When I asked for specifics, I get generalities.
Jim Jordan: Do you really believe that we did not come from intelligence, a Logos of some kind, but rather we rose from nothing with no plan?
If you mean “we” as living creatures—yes. If you mean “we” as animals—yes. If you mean “we” as humans—yes. If you mean “we” as in you and I—no. My parents are(were) quite intelligent.
I would ask if you even understand the term “Logos” or where it came from (Hint: read Philo), or what the Greek definition was utilized for—but past experience demonstrates you probably haven’t studied it whereas I have.
And you want to question about knowledge? Hmmmm..
Jim Jordan: Is that the best you can do based on the knowledge you have?
Yep. Of Course for me, “the best” is what we actually know, given the facts we have. It is not what we prefer. Not what “feels good.” Not what is emotionally satisfying. It is what is.
Jim Jordan: I am convinced of theism (intellectual assent). I am also convinced that Jesus is who He says He is (I'm a convert).
I have yet to see you propose a methodology by which we determine what Jesus actually said, so your being “convinced” of something you can’t demonstrate is not very compelling. People who have been kidnapped by Aliens are equally convinced, ya know.
we rose from nothing with no plan?
ReplyDeleteDagoods said**"As animals - yes. As living creatures - yes. As humans - yes. If you mean “we” as in you and I—no. My parents are(were) quite intelligent".
We became humans by accident and then we decided to have kids? Who decided we'd have kids before we first decided "Dang, we gotta have kids!"?
The problem with deciding "based on the best of our knowledge" is that it is never enough. Even the courts recognize this, they decide when there is no reasonable doubt. But there is still doubt. The elusive piece of evidence is called the absolute truth, the final story, the one that people take with them to the grave - and the one that God knows. Even with all the evidence a court sees, there is still an element of faith involved in the decision.
Do you sincerely believe that there is no God at all beyond a reasonable doubt? Is screening the New Testament for mistakes your only evidence against God's existence?
It is not what we prefer. Not what “feels good.”
You are doing the same thing with your excuse: "Based on the best of my knowledge". Vinny pointed that out indirectly - based on his best application of his God given reason to the evidence available to him.
So it's God's fault if you're wrong! [I do hope He gives you a break.-] If I'm wrong it's nobody's fault. I don't have to worry about the wrath of Darwin.
Last, you might win arguments with some theists, or even all of them, but it does not answer the question "Does God exist?" Only the truth itself can answer.
BTW, I had a problem with the Global Flood claim, the Jericho massacre, the Adam and Eve narrative, and the OT in general. In the NT, why Jesus was the only way to God seemed irrational to me. Those were the major objections for me. I'll blog specifically on those points in the next few days and weeks. I have discussed those doubts in previous blogs but not on their own.
Regards.
Who said anything about “accident”? I find in the creation/evolution debate, the creationist uses the term “accident” differently than an evolutionist.
ReplyDeleteThe ancestral animals who did not have progeny never promulgated their species. The ones who did; did. It is not a matter of “deciding” as much as surviving.
Actually, you are quite incorrect when it comes to courts. We decide things based upon what we know now all the time. In fact, simply discovering new evidence, in itself, is NOT a basis for a new trial! Part of the problem of many of these DNA cases (thankfully we have gotten better) was the reluctance of Appellate courts to overturn cases despite the new, persuasive DNA evidence.
Luckily in life, I do not have quite that limitation. I can change my mind upon learning new evidence.
(I’ve never heard the fact there is doubt in a jury verdict equated with faith. Are you saying faith requires doubt? Your analogy became as entangled as Paul’s! *grin*)
Jim Jordan: Do you sincerely believe that there is no God at all beyond a reasonable doubt?
Yep. Using the legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”—easily.
Jim Jordan: Is screening the New Testament for mistakes your only evidence against God's existence?
Nope. But since the Christians can’t seem to prevail on persuasion on this point, and I find it a fascinating area to study—why move on hastily?
Jim Jordan: So it's God's fault if you're wrong!
There is no god, so no—it is not God’s fault: solely mine. As to the theist’s claim for a particular God, I guess it would depend on the God, eh? Never had a deist tell me I think it is God’s fault. (I really don’t have a clue where you get the impression I think anything is God’s fault. I tend to be pretty self-determining.)
Jim Jordan: Last, you might win arguments with some theists, or even all of them, but it does not answer the question "Does God exist?"
No, but if I am winning every argument with every theist (including the argument “Does God Exist?”), it sure isn’t giving much credence to the fact there is a God, now does it! Is this really the strength of your belief? Even if every argument is against you, you think it is still possible and therefore you still believe?
One wonders why a methodology you refuse to embrace (presumably) when it comes to geocentricism, or flat-earth, or skunks-in-a-stump cures warts, or blood sacrifices cause the sun to revolve, or leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, trolls and elves, you literally base your life upon when it comes to your god.
Jim Jordan: BTW, I had a problem with the Global Flood claim, the Jericho massacre, the Adam and Eve narrative, and the OT in general. In the NT, why Jesus was the only way to God seemed irrational to me. Those were the major objections for me.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jim,
ReplyDelete**We became humans by accident and then we decided to have kids? **
I think this was in specifics here. DagoodS was personally not an accident.
**You are doing the same thing with your excuse: "Based on the best of my knowledge". Vinny pointed that out indirectly - based on his best application of his God given reason to the evidence available to him.**
If this means that DagoodS is deciding based on what feels good, rather than what is, then it's not the same. People can make a decision that doesn't feel good based on their reason, or based on all the knowledge they have at one point. Their reason tells them what is, and they go against what "feels good." It might feel good not to go to war because of the cost to innocent people, but reason/knowledge might tell us that war is a "necesary evil" and will produce the least amount of deaths.
If anything, based on what DagoodS prefers, he doesn't prefer to be an atheist. He didn't want to de-convert.
**I was a skeptic who had to admit over time that my questions were easily answered and not silver bullets as I'd thought they were. **
I do think you should do as you suggested, and blog about the doubts you have, and the ways in which you resolved them. If nothing else, it'll give you a reference point in future conversations. To say that you've mentioned your doubts previously, and yet not offer examples, may solve it for you, but it looks like it's coming across as evasion to DagoodS.
One of the things that might be interesting, if you blog on this, is how/when your doubts were resolved in comparison to your conversion experience. Did you set out to prove the Bible wrong after you converted, or before? Did resolving the doubts play any part in your converstion experience?
Dagood, you asked me in another thread: What is the rate of rain necessary to cover the earth in 40 days? Why does the fossil record contradict a flood?
ReplyDeleteThose were my points exactly. Then I came to this conclusion which is summed up by my response in that thread - the event is historical but not literal. My replies are at March 12th, 2008 at 1:17 am and 4:20 pm at that thread. That long ago. So I'm not being evasive. What I thought before was what Dagoods thinks now. What I think now is what I thought was a better argument.
It still drives me crazy when so many Christians fight any questioner without even looking that closely at the Scriptures themselves much less the original Greek or Hebrew. Their motto should be, "God said it, I mangled it, that settles it!"
My resistance broke down just as Dagoods' broke down before atheism. During that time I started to apply some of the principles including prayer and re-aligning my priorities and thinking. Then I joined a Bible Study group. In that first year of Bible Study my conversion happened, it was last.
Dagoods said**There is no god, so no—it is not God’s fault: solely mine.
Thanks for clarifying that. Regards.