As an ex-Christian you've heard the same spiel, "You were never a Christian." How do you respond?
I often make this argument because I think it carries weight because it forces the issue as to what a Christian is. Let's keep it simple. A Christian does the following:
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.- John 14:23-24
And
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. - Romans 10:9-10
And
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. - John 3:3
I respond in four ways:]
I have never spoken to an apostate who understood what Jesus meant about being "born again". They had head knowledge (most of the time faulty if it was anything like what they think the Bible says now) but no change of heart and mind. No humble admission of sin or the need to submit all they are to God. Let's look at Loftus' "responses".
1) That's just one of your delusions. There are many more;
What about the apostates' delusions? If Loftus is saying that a believer is delusional then does that mean he was delusional when he believed? If so, how does he know he didn't trade one delusion for another? How does he know that he's not still delusional? Or that he used to see things clearly but now deluded? He offers no proof. No evidence. He just tosses it out there and doesn't seem to think it needs to be defended. But it does. There is no reason to accept it anymore then one needs to accept another's Christianity because they say they are or were a Christian. This is a much better explanation.
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. - 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
2) Your God promised that if I believed he would save me. I believed, so why didn't he keep his promise?;
One of two things is true. Either the Bible is wrong or Loftus (or any Apostate) didn't believe.Given that the Bible is infallible and true that would make apostates at least mistaken if not lying if they claim they really believed the message. The gospel changes you in such ways that can't be be undone. Just like a person can't be unborn once he/she is born, you can't undue the spiritual birth. Today, many apostates not only claim that they used to believe but they say now that they have no sin. Accepting your status as a sinner is the first step in salvation. Denying that makes me wonder if the apostate ever really began to understand the depths of their own sin.
3) I don't care what you think. Deal with my arguments;
This is the best response Loftus offers but he and other open themselves up to having their "Christian experience" scrutinized because they make it part of their argument. Loftus and Dan Barker and others say, "See, I used to be like, but now I know better and you should join me in my way of thinking." Anyone who uses that has got to know that people are gonna wanna know if you were truly like them. I have not met or heard a single apostate be able to prove it.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ - Matthew 7:21-23
4) You're right, because there isn't any truth to Christianity. I was never saved because Jesus doesn't save anyone and that includes you.
So option 4 is to contradict every one of the other responses and hope that no one notices the baseless assumption that no one could ever provide evidence for. What is this? A playground? I have one thing to say to apostates who would argue in this manner: "Inconsistent much?"
Debunking Christianity: My Responses to "You Were Never a Christian"
The second post deals with the disunity among Christians.
With over 30,000 different denominations and sects to choose from, Christianity bears no orthodoxy, no consistency and no authority whatsoever. It has hundreds of 'official' denominations who disagree, sometime violently on all foundational tenets of the religion. Given the general level of ignorance people have about the religion they adopt and their propensity for moulding it to be what they want it to be, one could argue that each Christian has their own denomination. We can state confidently, with evidence and reason that Christianity hasn't a clue what it believes or why. Until the Christianity’s can actually internally agree and harmonise what they believe and state why, they all remain a laughably absurd and unsubstantiated proposition to those who do not believe. Your argument is not with atheists, it's with the other 29,999 sects who view your Christianity as a joke. Link.
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day
...then you have to answer the question as to why you didn't experience what believers say they experience.
ReplyDeleteWho's to say I didn't? It's possible we experienced the same thing (in as much as two people can experience the same thing) and that you erroneously ascribe your religious priors to a subjective emotional experience.
I don't see anything in or John 3:3, 14:23-24 or Romans 10:9-10 that doesn't accurately described how I felt, what I believed and how I acted when I was a Christian.
I have never spoken to an apostate who understood what Jesus meant about being "born again".
This is a lie, unless you mean "spoken" in the literal sense.
Given that the Bible is infallible and true.
Why would that be given?
Today, many apostates not only claim that they used to believe but they say now that they have no sin. Accepting your status as a sinner is the first step in salvation. Denying that makes me wonder if the apostate ever really began to understand the depths of their own sin.
This statement is misleading. I've noticed when we discuss my christianity, you seem to get stuck on the idea that what I believe now cannot be different that what I believed then. i.e. I currently don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of god, therefore I couldn't have been a Christian because Christians believe the Bible is the infallible word of god (nevermind that I did believe the Bible was the infallible word of god when I was a Christian). Your committing the genetic fallacy here. Because an "apostate" doesn't believe in sin as a metaphysical reality now, doesn't mean they didn't genuinely and humbly confess their sins when they were Christians (i.e. when they believed that sin was a metaphysical reality).
So option 4 is to contradict every one of the other responses
Why do you think it does? Do you think the "apostate" in option 2 honestly believes in a god that promised salvation when he poses the question? Asking rhetorical questions to highlight a belief's internal inconsistencies does not contradict the assertion that said belief is false.
My question is should [atheists] be dismissed because they don't have their "act together"? Why not?
I think your problem here is that atheism, in and of itself, is not and cannot claim to be a united front, in addition, atheists do not claim to receive divine revelation. You could almost have a point if you were talking about "humanism" or "naturalism" instead of atheism, since as philosophies, they should be somewhat consistent, but your problem is that religions, particularly religions that claim to be received via divine revelation saddle themselves with a higher standard of consistency. 30,000 sects (or even 30) is not what we'd expect from a religion based on a divine revelation received from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity. But it is what we'd expect from a human construct that evolves over time and across cultures.
I don't see anything in or John 3:3, 14:23-24 or Romans 10:9-10 that doesn't accurately described how I felt, what I believed and how I acted when I was a Christian.
ReplyDeleteYou are forgetting that those scriptures refer to one-way transformations. IF they are real they don't become reversed. Jesus did talk about how people at first can believe and then not believe. Refer to the Parable of the Sower Matthew 13:1-23. It explains you.
This is a lie, unless you mean "spoken" in the literal sense
If you mean that I've read apostates who said that they understand being "born again" - true,. But they didn't. And neither do you, Ryan.
you seem to get stuck on the idea that what I believe now cannot be different that what I believed then. i.e. I currently don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of god, therefore I couldn't have been a Christian because Christians believe the Bible is the infallible word of god (nevermind that I did believe the Bible was the infallible word of god when I was a Christian). Your committing the genetic fallacy here. Because an "apostate" doesn't believe in sin as a metaphysical reality now, doesn't mean they didn't genuinely and humbly confess their sins when they were Christians (i.e. when they believed that sin was a metaphysical reality).
Being Born-again mean a change of mind that can't be reverted or changed back. That is how the Bible describes. If God would replace your heart of stone with a heart of flesh, why would he let you switch it back? The most consistent and logical conclusion is that you will be reclaimed by God or that you were never claimed by God in the first place.
Why do you think it does? Do you think the "apostate" in option 2 honestly believes in a god that promised salvation when he poses the question? Asking rhetorical questions to highlight a belief's internal inconsistencies does not contradict the assertion that said belief is false.
No and that is why using the argument proves apostasy. The apostate is being false and just trying to prove a point and get the Christian off his case in option 2.
I think your problem here is that atheism, in and of itself, is not and cannot claim to be a united front, in addition, atheists do not claim to receive divine revelation. You could almost have a point if you were talking about "humanism" or "naturalism" instead of atheism, since as philosophies, they should be somewhat consistent, but your problem is that religions, particularly religions that claim to be received via divine revelation saddle themselves with a higher standard of consistency. 30,000 sects (or even 30) is not what we'd expect from a religion based on a divine revelation received from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity. But it is what we'd expect from a human construct that evolves over time and across cultures.
Ryan your problem is that you seem to think just claiming a revelation from God is good enough.They all can't be. Why? That's kinda naive.
Here, you tellingly skipped this one.
ReplyDelete...then you have to answer the question as to why you didn't experience what believers say they experience.
Who's to say I didn't? It's possible we experienced the same thing (in as much as two people can experience the same thing) and that you erroneously ascribe your religious priors to a subjective emotional experience.
Here, you tellingly skipped this one.
ReplyDeleteSo you think that i answered the other points you raised? Thank you.
...then you have to answer the question as to why you didn't experience what believers say they experience.
Who's to say I didn't? It's possible we experienced the same thing (in as much as two people can experience the same thing) and that you erroneously ascribe your religious priors to a subjective emotional experience.
I thought I did address this, but if you need more detail...fine. I was not talking about a single emotional experience. You claimed to be a believer for 25 years, over that time there should have been a relationship that grew - God related to you - revealing more and more of God to you and yourself.
I have no doubt that you felt something when you thought your were saved. I've been in church all my life. I've seen people fallout, cry, scream, roll around on the floor because they felt God, but then they go up and their lives did not change. The emotional experience is important but not the most important thing. For me it's not an emotional thing. It's just as logical as it is emotional and not subjective. If the Bible is true, then you cannot be right. If you were born-again you cannot become unborn-again. The Bible says that if you are in Christ, you are a new creation and all things become new. If this is true you cannot revert to being what you were. Objectively, there is nothing else you can say. Because of you "you erroneously ascribe your religious priors to a subjective emotional experience" you need the Bible to be wrong to support your erroneous experience.
So you think that I answered the other points you raised? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteNot in the least, but I've learned there is little I can respond to when you make unsubstantiated assertions. In fact, I would guess that if you went back and looked at every comment I've not responded to, you'd either find an ad hominem or a bald assertion on your end.
I was not talking about a single emotional experience.
No, neither was I.
There should have been a relationship that grew.
Seemed like it, for most of the 25 years.
For me it's not an emotional thing.
Yes, it is, at least how I meant emotional. If it's an "experience" and it's not quantifiable, it's emotional. I meant emotional in the sense that it occurs within your brain, as opposed to empirical sensory data. I didn't mean emotional in the sense of fools crying and flopping around.
If you were born-again you cannot become unborn-again
There are other sects that disagree with this on biblical grounds. We've been over that.
But as expected, you didn't demonstrate, and I don't think it's possible for you to prove, that we didn't have very similar experiences and you are not erroneously ascribing your religious priors to a subjective emotional experience.