Were You a True Christian

[Mythra]

• Are there people who earnestly trust Christ and later come to belief these actions were fruitless and there is no God. I would imagine there are.BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Burry: you know this thread wasn't directed at you, right? As far as the misled go, you are one of the cooler ones. We got no beef.

 

But, about your statement here. In order for you to say "I imagine there are" here, you cannot avoid saying - something like - "if this is a possiblility, then I have trouble making sense of Jesus' words that are quoted earlier in this thread."

 

The two statements cannot be reconciled.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

I think those who try to find some sort of fabricated synthesis in the old Calvinism versus Arminianism debate (i.e., "the contradiction points to something we don't fully understand in God's plan"), portrays the real definition of a "True Christian."  Being a "True Christian" I think is best defined as someone who rationalizes illogically everything that seems to point to their beliefs being ill founded.  It is contradictory.  Accept it.

 

So to answer the initial question, was I ever a "True Christian"?  Even though I had largely the same experiences as many of the others in this thread, being in church as a leader, "won" numerous converts to the church, preached, taught, got a degree in theology, etc, I guess I never was a "True Christian", because I couldn’t continue to ignore reality.  I am now just a true human.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was definitely a true Christian. I have the scars to prove it. Literally, in a few cases.

 

Seriously, though, how could you NOT have been a true, devout Christian when you're ten years out and still feel sometimes like you're recovering from betrayal by THREE parents instead of two?

 

Though ultimately that's a topic for a different thread, on a somewhat safer part of the board.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Hey TK421,

 

There are a significant number of scriptures whish seem to relate to "God choosing us" there are many which seem to point to "Us choosing God."

 

The only logical conclusions I have come to, as yet are:

 

a: Scripture is in contradiction to itself, and thus not the Word of God or b:, We do not understand how seemingly contradictory statements both point to a single truth.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We do not understand how seemingly contradictory statements both point to a single truth.

 

Well, since your talkin about logic, then you must admit that you have no logical reason to ASSume that these two statements which DO CONTRADICT do not actually contradict. Circular logic, argument to ignorance and a special plead is just plain illogical. You have zero reason to choose b other than that you are in denial.

[Mythra]

We do not understand how seemingly contradictory statements both point to a single truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me, this leads to another really important question. Why would God go to all the trouble to "inspire" this book called the bible as a roadmap to himself, and then fill it with "seeming" contradictions? Does he like to play games? Does he only want followers who keep believing in spite of their reason?

 

But the truth is, saying "seeminginly contradictory" is just another way of saying "definitely contradictory, but I'm careful about not starting any cracks in my foundation"......

[Amethyst]

What about you guys? Were you real or pretend christians?

 

When I was a child, I believed in Jesus with all my heart. I even knelt (at times) to say my bedtime prayers. Even when I got older, I still prayed and believed in the Bible, even after my mother died. So yes, pretty much up until my college years, I was.

[dogmatically_challenged]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me, this leads to another really important question.  Why would God go to all the trouble to "inspire" this book called the bible as a roadmap to himself, and then fill it with "seeming" contradictions?  Does he like to play games?  Does he only want followers who keep believing in spite of their reason?

 

But the truth is, saying "seeminginly contradictory" is just another way of saying "definitely contradictory, but I'm careful about not starting any cracks in my foundation"......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do contradict. There is nothing that an xer has that explains why they contradict outside of circular logic and wishful thinking. There is a contradiction. They contradict because two different writers had contradicting beliefs about god. I use evidence. The xer uses logical fallacies. Go were the evidence leads you.

 

And yes, you have it right. An all loving god with such awesome super powers would not use a book in the first place.

 

If god loves us and is everywere then there is no need of a book. If god is everywere then every single person that ever lived would have been reached by bible god through a personal revealation and the same kind of friendship that adam, abraham, and moses and some other prophets enjoyed.

 

If god loves us he would have reached all of us and no book is necessary for any reason. If an xer wants to refute this logical conclusion then they need to explain, as you say, why a god would use a book; and especially a book that is contradictory internaly as well as contradicting what we know of history and nature.

[bob]

• Are there people who “play church” yet never believe the truth? I would imagine there are.

• Are there people who sincerely think they know the truth but in reality do not trust Christ for their salvation? I would imagine there are.

Oh, this is rich. So which is it? Do the faithful believe the truth, or do they know the truth? You do realize that if you know the truth, there is no need for belief, don't you? And please tell us, what is the truth?

[Ouroboros]

Oh, this is rich.  So which is it?  Do the faithful believe the truth, or do they know the truth?  You do realize that if you know the truth, there is no need for belief, don't you?  And please tell us, what is the truth?

The truth is that it is a five letter word and no one have a clue what the heck the word really stands for! And backwards it becomes hturt, and that doesn't make any more sense either...

 

(I'm just in a goofy mood)

[dogmatically_challenged]

The truth is that it is a five letter word and no one have a clue what the heck the word really stands for! And backwards it becomes hturt, and that doesn't make any more sense either...

 

(I'm just in a goofy mood)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Truth is a word that religionists use. They have hijacked the word. I say let them have it so long as we point out that its a bullshit word if we aren't talking about facts or evidences. Faith and Truth the way they use it for thier magical thinking gives us no reason for confidence were facts and evidence do.

[crazy-tiger]

(I'm just in a goofy mood)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No change there then...

 

 

 

 

 

*runs like hell...*

[Ouroboros]

No change there then...

*runs like hell...*

 

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN NOT HIDE C-T!!!

[Vigile]

My desire for the deepest levels of intimacy with God is what motivated me to study; for several years I was "in the Bible" for 40-80 hours a week.

 

 

 

You were hard core girl!

 

I won't even try and compete with that.

 

Myrtha spelled out my experience better than I could. I don't really want to dig up old memories of my past gullibility beyond that.

[Vigile]

It seems clear to me, that ExChristians generally have been very commited Christians. It is like searching for a hidden treasure. If there is something wrong with the map, it is the most commited persons, who will be the first to find out.

 

In Christianity, there are a lot of things wrong with the map.

 

Well put. I've said on at least one occasion on this website that ex c's here were most likely some of the most committed, deeply soul-searching christians there were. It was for this very need to find all truth and approach our faith with conviction that led to the ultimate unraveling of faith. Christians who sit on the pew on Sunday and gobble up everything the pastor spews without another thought are in no danger of losing their faith unless an outside force shakes them out of it.

 

I think this is why it is such an insult when accusations fly that we were never saved. It's like Hans said though, they need us to have never been saved otherwise they are in danger themselves.

[Guest bdp]

a little late here, but yes, I was a True Christian.

 

bdp

[Lunar Shadow]

Some Christians here make the claim that no one who is ever a true christian will leave the faith.  Then, they provide the formula on how to become a true christian, and it's the exact same thing that we did.  At one time, I would have died before I denied Jesus.  I'm pretty sure I was a real christian.  Jesus meant more to me than anything.  I agonized over people who didn't believe.  Can you think you believe and be ready to die for christ, and yet not really believe?  Is is that difficult to be saved?  What about you guys?  Were you real or pretend christians? 

 

I think some christians have to believe this, because if they don't, it'll shake up their world too much.  I mean, if we were the real deal and left, it means that they have a chance of losing it, too.

 

 

I would say that yes I too was a true Xtian I went 2 times a week was on the worship team and so on and so. I too would have died for my faith (looking back I feel foolish thinking so). If anyone says thatg I was otherwise they can kiss my ass. I am tired of Xtians saying I have no room to speak when it comes to Xtianity because I am an Atheist (at which point I go toe to toe with them and prove I know much more about thier religion than they, themselves do).

 

 

Than you Mythra for brining this up this is somthing I have wanted to vent on for a while now

[Saviourmachine]

Can you think you believe and be ready to die for christ, and yet not really believe? Is is that difficult to be saved? What about you guys? Were you real or pretend christians?

If I did pretend my conversion it was very subconscious. I had a real 'Calvinistic' conversion. At the night that I "surrendered to the Lord" I was convinced that whatever God wanted to do to me - even sending to hell - was right. I felt peace in admitting that the things in my life were hell worthy. I broke a few commandments... I stole when I was in my puberty for example.

I considered all the people that weren't saved, and I was very sad about that. However, when I saw myself, I said: "Yes, to be condemned is what I deserve, and I can't judge the other people. I trust you God in that." I felt entirely hell worthy because I realized that the Supreme Being found it so evil what I had done, that He or His Representative on Earth did die on the cross for the sin of humans. When I was thinking and praying about all this, I slowly came to acknowledge that God wanted me too. And I believed; believed entirely, wholeheartedly.

That time in my life I wanted to do whatever God wanted me to do. Be it to die as Samson, to live as a monk, to travel and evangelize as Paul, to be single as Jesus. It didn't matter at all.

When people say that I wasn't a real christian, I know they have their own reasons to say that. I know my own heart. It's like saying that I didn't really love my former girlfriend.

[Christopher Carrion]

Never having been inculcated into the Christ Cult, I always find the argument that those who leave the faith "never had TRUE faith" in the first place absurd beyond comprehension. Ask yourselves this, were I, a none-christian, to have come across one of you ex-christians whilst you were still happy-clappy Christians, alongside one of those who still define themselves as such, would I notice any difference between you? I doubt it very much.

 

The argument that those who leave the faith cannot possibly have "known Jesus" as intimately or as consummately as those still inculcated within the faith is a ridiculously defencism, designed to insulate the parroter from critically considering why someone might have legitimate reason to step outside the beliefs by which they define themselves, and thereby frolm critically considering the beliefs themselves. Like most Christian stock arguments it is neurotic, self-serving and ill-considered. More than that, it is undeniably selfish; surely their time and breath would be better spent producing reasoned arguments as to why you should rejoin the flock rather than attempting to grind you down psychologically?

[Mythra]

The argument that those who leave the faith cannot possibly have "known Jesus" as intimately or as consummately as those still inculcated within the faith is a ridiculously defencism, designed to insulate the parroter from critically considering why someone might have legitimate reason to step outside the beliefs by which they define themselves, and thereby frolm critically considering the beliefs themselves. Like most Christian stock arguments it is neurotic, self-serving and ill-considered. More than that, it is undeniably selfish; surely their time and breath would be better spent producing reasoned arguments as to why you should rejoin the flock rather than attempting to grind you down psychologically?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow. Was that well stated.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Board, especially, TK421 and thankful,

 

Why are we talking about free will and predestination here, BTR?  This thread is about "true" Christians.  Why not start a new thread?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please know I was not attempting to hijack the thread. From my perspective, I did not see any of the three options Mythra laid out as one I could choose and I attempted to answer his question in a concise way. I will not mention it again in this thread unless I am asked to.

 

But, about your statement here.  In order for you to say "I imagine there are" here, you cannot avoid saying - something like - "if this is a possiblility, then I have trouble making sense of Jesus' words that are quoted earlier in this thread."

 

The two statements cannot be reconciled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mythra, I can tell you are very knowledgeable of the scriptures so I will leave it at I don’t think the three choices you offered were an accurate representation of the choices available. I don’t want to hijack this thread, so if you choose to, PM me and I’ll be happy to send a pile of scripture references your way.

 

Hey Bob,

Oh, this is rich.  So which is it?  Do the faithful believe the truth, or do they know the truth?  You do realize that if you know the truth, there is no need for belief, don't you?  And please tell us, what is the truth?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

belief  n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

knowledge n.

1. The state or fact of knowing.

2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.

5. Specific information about something.

6. Carnal knowledge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=knowledge

It seems the most basic definition is; believing is placing your faith in something else, knowledge is gained through personal research. If we hear something on the news, do we believe it or know it? What about scientific facts? I have no way of personally testing any but the most rudimentary scientific truths. Even if I had the equipment and time, I don’t have the expertise to interpret the data. So is trusting the experts belief or knowledge? Apparently I don’t draw a clear distinction between the two. It’s a good question.

 

As for what is the truth? I’m certainly not the final authority. I am a Christian and would not be if I did not believe the claims of Christ to be true. I’m not trying to skirt the issue, is this a satisfactory answer?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Antlerman]

I was definitely a true Christian. I have the scars to prove it. Literally, in a few cases.

 

Seriously, though, how could you NOT have been a true, devout Christian when you're ten years out and still feel sometimes like you're recovering from betrayal by THREE parents instead of two?

 

Though ultimately that's a topic for a different thread, on a somewhat safer part of the board.

I was being sarcastic. Of course I was sincere in my beliefs, as "evidenced by my works" (to use some Christianese ). "True Christian" is such a trite phrase and so damned judgmental by inferring others are not!! If you have a "True Christian", then those that differ have to be "Untrue Christians". What arrogance! It's putrid. I think it's better to apply that term, "True Christian" to those who perpetually live their lives in willful denial.

 

In other words, I guess then I wasn't a "True Christian" because I couldn't live my whole life committing intellectual suicide. But absolutely I was sincere in my beliefs. So let the "True Christian" judge us if it makes them feel better about why someone dumped their beliefs. That's all it's about - them and their insecurities.

[TruthWarrior]

I think I got saved many times over in many different churches. Each had you do their own wacky ritual or say a certain mantra for salvation. Being that there is so many different ways to be saved, and unsaved, how could I ever be sure I was?

 

I don't remember having any magic moment where I felt I was saved. I did feel tingles sometimes though, like the hair standing on the back of my neck. Some say that it was the holy spirit. But then I had the same feeling sometimes when watching movies as non theist. I found it to just be an emotional reaction. I did have some moments of extreme joy in christianity. Then again I had the same joy at times when I was non christian. So christianity is nothing really but bells and whistles, smoke and mirrors.

 

I also found that no matter what type of christian you are, there always another "true christian" saying you're not one. I do like the universalist christians, but they arent much different then any others.

[bob]

I am a Christian and would not be if I did not believe the claims of Christ to be true.

If I asked you if Jesus died for my sins, would you answer "yes", or would you answer, "I believe he did"? If you answer "yes", you are dishonest, because you are affirming something as true when you don't actually know it to be true. If you answered, "I believe he did", then you are honest.

[Burry The Rag]

If I asked you if Jesus died for my sins, would you answer "yes", or would you answer, "I believe he did"?  If you answer "yes", you are dishonest, because you are affirming something as true when you don't actually know it to be true.  If you answered, "I believe he did", then you are honest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey bob,

 

I understand that. Believe vs. knowledge. But what then, do we really know? If I asked you, "Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" could you honestly answer "Yes"?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[doomguarder]

I understand that. Believe vs. knowledge. But what then, do we really know? If I asked you, "Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" could you honestly answer "Yes"?

 

Yes I can. It can be proven mathematically, it can be proven through observation of stars and planetary movement in the solar system. The very cycle of the seasons is dependant on the rotation of the earth around the sun and the rotation of the earth on its axis. It was the flat earthers who refused to swayed from the religious based idea that the earth was the center of it all. They rejected evidence that might place their faith in question. I do not need faith to know the earth revolves around the sun.

 

Pick a better analogy.

[bob]

Hey bob,

I understand that. Believe vs. knowledge. But what then, do we really know? If I asked you, "Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" could you honestly answer "Yes"?

Peace!

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the evidence that has been presented to me, I can answer with a fair amount of certainty, that yes, the earth does revolve around the sun. Just like I can answer yes that, when I inhale, air fills my lungs. I haven't seen it, but I have been presented evidence for the fact.

I would have to say that I have knowledge affirming those facts, and that my knowledge is based on scientific evidence. I don't have to "believe" in the relationship between the earth and the sun, and I don't have to "believe" in air.

Belief is not required.

Isn't belief (faith) required of you from your god? If you could state his existence as a truth, shouldn't you have some scientific and historical evidence to present?

I don't know. I barely made it through high school 30 years ago. I am just squeezing out what little bit I have bouncing around in my head.