Spectrox Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I've just recently debated with a Christain scholar on Theologyonline.com. If anyone's interested , here's the thread http://www.theologyo...ead.php?t=81673 The guy was called Town Heretic - he said he was a lawyer. His argument was essentially that I could not possibly be an ex-christian because there is an inherent contradiction in apostacy. His argument was that he assumed that "trust" is a forever or nothing concept and because I doubted the Bible, I never had genuine trust to begin with and therefore did not know the real God or Jesus. He said I had a stunted faith which was more like infatuation than genuine faith. He said I was logically inconsistent irrespective of whether a God exists or not! I'd be interested to know anyone else's view on this discussion because it had my head spinning for a while. I think it's essentially bullshit and a red herring. Notice how Town Heretic does not really answer any questions relating to Biblical contradictions or far-fetched Biblical claims. He gives a politician's answer. And even if my Christian experience was self-contradictory, it does nothing to further Bible claims at all. I think the guy genuinely believed what he was saying and he was no dummy. But mixing legalese with Biblical claims is an inpenetrable recipe for disaster in my opinion. A smokescreen. A clever way of making excuses for assumption and covering up a lie. In other words, a head fuck using word games. Why does God need a lawyer to represent him anyway? Is God guilty of some misdemeanour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I got only about four pages in because i realized i was just going to be angry at stupidity and not learn something. If you want to know, I got as far as the seed analogy and birds consuming the seeds in regards to faith. About losing something you never had and his analogy to marriage. The marriage thing actually proves our point perfectly. Ex-christian, is a bit like being like someone who has had a divorce or is a widow. He asking of us to conform our standards to god's is asking us to commit the argument from authority fallacy because we have to assume just because its a authority, that the authority is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positivist Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 No True ScotsmanTM! But it still smarts, doesn't it? I'm not going to read it because I hate the way it makes me feel. Find peace, friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted April 13, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted April 13, 2012 I guess I never really believed in Santa Claus since I now know HE DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST! An argument, legalese notwithstanding, of absurdity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I kind of want to punch anyone in the face that doubts my sincerity of intent. Behind all that "logic", that's all these assholes do. They can kiss the fattest part of my ass. If I never was a christian, it wasn't from lack of trying, and that's ALWAYS what they insinuate. They can eat me on the heaviest day of my period. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I'm not even gonna bother reading that. I know I'll just RAGE. But this is nothing new. In fact, it's a pretty common thing Christians say to those who leave and the fastest way to piss of anyone on here. Typical judgemental Christian thing to say. Nothing you do is ever good enough for those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The guy was called Town Heretic - he said he was a lawyer. ... Why does God need a lawyer to represent him anyway? Is God guilty of some misdemeanour? Lawyers are experts in double-speak. In ancient Greek, they would've been sophists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetourist Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I got into a huge argument/shouting match with my mother on some holiday last Sunday about something similar. She told my insanely catholic grandmother basically the opposite of what is in that article, that I (and my cousin) were not actually ex-Christians because "your salvation isn't based on a point in time". In other words, she thinks because I once believed in Christianity (as a brainwashed adolescent), I am always part of the faith for life regardless of my very conscious and informed decision not to be. I felt like one of those people the Mormons baptize after they're dead, In the sense that I'm being touted as part of a religion I actively believe to be false there is nothing I can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I got into a huge argument/shouting match with my mother on some holiday last Sunday about something similar. She told my insanely catholic grandmother basically the opposite of what is in that article, that I (and my cousin) were not actually ex-Christians because "your salvation isn't based on a point in time". In other words, she thinks because I once believed in Christianity (as a brainwashed adolescent), I am always part of the faith for life regardless of my very conscious and informed decision not to be. I felt like one of those people the Mormons baptize after they're dead, In the sense that I'm being touted as part of a religion I actively believe to be false there is nothing I can do about it. Welcome to the "once saved always saved theology". Aint it great to be safe either way? We're the best kind of atheists because if there is a God we still go to heaven because we once prayed the prayer. I love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectrox Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 Thanks for your responses guys. I think we're pretty much in agreement that it was just a waste of my time, designed to put me off posting on this christian-biassed website. The Internet - where religion goes to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chikirin Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 If I never was a christian, it wasn't from lack of trying, and that's ALWAYS what they insinuate. Yes, I agree. Of course, they do not care that this attitude contradicts the idea that faith is a gift from God lest no man should boast, which is exactly what they are doing, boasting. I will not speak about my leaving Christianity with any Christians, from what I've read here over the past few months, it sounds like an exercise in futility. I know that if I let them speak to me, they will only boast about the encounter at that week's small group, and I don't want to give them the satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Christians use double talk to justify their faith and confuse new converts. Lawyers use double talk to justify their clients and confuse juries. Seems like Christian Lawyers would be very good at double talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well, isn't it kind of an integral part of their pattern of denial? I mean, if I'm a Christian, then it upsets me to know that apostates exist because it implies that people, me included, are capable of losing faith. It therefore becomes important to 'explain' why they were never really Christians; they never truly believed. It all seems a great big ego trip to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted April 13, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted April 13, 2012 ...it implies that people, me included, are capable of losing faith. Exactly. Nobody wants to entertain the thought that they could lose their special status with God, therefore it must be impossible for a True Believer to ever stop believing - and of course they are genuine Bona Fide True Believers - just as you and I were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Please remember that lawyers are not trying to discover the truth. They are trying to win arguments. A decent lawyer is extremely good at winning arguments. Some years ago I got into a huge (non-theological) argument with an absolutely brilliant lawyer, who admitted afterward that he'd been trying so hard to "win" he completely forgot about uncovering the issue and resolving it. That said, the idea that there's no such thing as an ex-Christian seems to me the ultimate ego defense. I mean really, what's the difference between someone like me and a believer? Am I smarter, more "evolved," wiser than a believer? I'd hesitate to say that, honestly. I'm not sure what particular trait in me sees an unanswered prayer and just isn't happy with the apologetic excuse for why God didn't answer when the Bible says he should. I'm not sure what special quirk of mine sees the proliferation of resurrected God-men in ancient Near Eastern cults and sees it as a reason to disbelieve the claims of the New Testament, when others see it and can excuse it away and still believe. If there is little to no difference between an average chick like me and one who stays in the faith, it gets awfully threatening to imagine someone leaving because that could have been any one of us sitting in these pews. If ex-Christians were once real Christians, then absolutely nothing stops any other real Christian from leaving. In the same manner, when a couple gets divorced, the entire peer group must evaluate their own marriages. Well, obviously they got divorced; they were destined to fail. They got married too young, or too old, or their ages are mismatched. They didn't have kids, or they had too many, or they only had one. They were too poor, or had too much money. They were uneducated, or so well-educated it interfered with proper gender roles. But we aren't like that. We need to call out these fallacies when we see them. Yes, I was a real Christian. And I still found enough flaws in the system to walk away without a second glance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flockoff Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 "Because people come here a lot with their deconversion story and about how devout they were as Christians. But then we find out they were 13 years old, so it just doesn't mean very much." So people who left at 13 were too young to have had a meaningful experience, even though Jesus wanted his disciples to come to him as little children and it's safe and acceptable to push kids into dealing with Christianity and the hell doctrine five, ten years earlier. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I'm going to say that had I still been Christian, I would've been skeptical of your faith too since you were only Christian for 3 months. Also, I think that one person who seemed to think you had to be older than 35 to have any valid opinion was a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 No such thing as an ex christian? Hebrews 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. (NIV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 The guy was called Town Heretic - he said he was a lawyer. ... Why does God need a lawyer to represent him anyway? Is God guilty of some misdemeanour? Lawyers are experts in double-speak. In ancient Greek, they would've been sophists. uncalled for : / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flockoff Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 No such thing as an ex christian? Hebrews 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. (NIV) As clear as that sounds, the way it was explained to me after I read it as a Christian (and it mortally terrified me) was that it addressed the Hebrew Christians who were still using burnt offerings to atone for sins; it was impossible for that to mean anything now and they were just publically disgracing Christ's sacrifice for them. I don't really know or care anymore what it actually meant, but this guy probably would have a similar answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Lawyers are experts in double-speak. In ancient Greek, they would've been sophists. uncalled for : / Okay. "Many lawyers are experts in ..." (Perhaps modern lawyers have lost the skill.) ... Besides "Sophists were also some of the world's first lawyers, making full use of their highly-developed argumentation skill." (http://www.philosoph...ts_sophism.html) Or "Some contemporary social critics compare modern day advertisers, lawyers, and politicians to Greek sophists." (http://www.mhhe.com/...rn_sophists.htm) And also, "In addition, Sophists had great impact on the early development of law, as the sophists were the first lawyers in the world. Their status as lawyers was a result of their extremely developed argumentation skills.[11]" (http://en.wikipedia....ism#cite_ref-10) Sophists in ancient Greek and their influence on law: http://plato.stanfor...tries/sophists/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Another reference to ex christians: 2 Peter: 2:20 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. 2:21 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Lawyers are experts in double-speak. In ancient Greek, they would've been sophists. uncalled for : / Okay. "Many lawyers are experts in ..." (Perhaps modern lawyers have lost the skill.) ... Besides "Sophists were also some of the world's first lawyers, making full use of their highly-developed argumentation skill." (http://www.philosoph...ts_sophism.html) Or "Some contemporary social critics compare modern day advertisers, lawyers, and politicians to Greek sophists." (http://www.mhhe.com/...rn_sophists.htm) And also, "In addition, Sophists had great impact on the early development of law, as the sophists were the first lawyers in the world. Their status as lawyers was a result of their extremely developed argumentation skills.[11]" (http://en.wikipedia....ism#cite_ref-10) Sophists in ancient Greek and their influence on law: http://plato.stanfor...tries/sophists/ I can't tell if you missed the point or if you're just annoyed. "Double-speak" is just a negative way to describe presenting something in the best possible light. "Sophistry" is also a negative word. I'm objecting to your tone, not to your accuracy. All you're really saying is that this guy should be really good at making his case, but you've thrown in 'double-speak' and 'sophistry' in there to cast him (and lawyers generally) as untrustworthy. And as someone set to take the bar this summer, I can't say I liked reading that. : / double-speak: You would make an excellent sophist speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 double-speak: You would make an excellent sophist speaker. I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 @pockets - I'm glad to see you around again; hope everything's going smoothly for you and yours. I hope you're not denying that sometimes people who are really good at arguing/debate can get caught up in the mechanics of the argument and forget about the "communication" part of a discussion, as indeed the guy in the link seems to have. That he makes absolutely sure everybody knows he's a lawyer and uses that fact to try to strong-arm people's opinions doesn't help much. When I worked at call centers, the callers I hated the most were the folks who announced that they were lawyers; that always guaranteed an excruciating conversation with an entitlement-minded jackass. Think of it very much as waiters think of Christians . I'm positive that there were far more nice lawyers than douches, but they didn't tend to announce themselves! About all one can do is be the exception that tests the rule, as indeed you are. With regard to the actual topic, it seems more and more like Christianity was designed from the ground up to be as manipulative as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts