Your own words

[Wordleymaster1]

There is A LOT of seemed emphasis on one's own personal experience. Christians believe God is real based on their feelings and experiences. What about non-Christians or former Christians? Are their experience and feelings any less valuable than Christians?
A lot of times believers seem to act like "well I believe so should you because whatever". But when push comes to shove, the only evidence a believer TRULY has about God is their personal experience so is their view any more powerful/relevant to others than a former Christian's?
Situation:
2 guys, one a Christian one a former Christian. You talk to both of them asking them the same questions. You get vastly different answers. Which one holds more weight? Which one SHOULD hold more weight? Are they treated as equals?

[Divine Insight]

Personal experiences hold no weight in rational arguments where one person is trying to convince another person to accept or believe in something.

Personal experience is however a valid explanation for why a person holds the beliefs they hold.

I think a lot of times debates and arguments are not clarified. In other words, some people are simply trying to "defend" why they personally believe something, whilst the other person may be trying to "debate" why anyone should believe it.

Having said this, I think that even rational thought can, and should, be applied to personal experiences.

For example, when I was young I had a very profound sense that I was in the presence of a supernatural being. This had nothing to do with religion other than perhaps the fact that I sensed that this presence was the ultimate supreme being responsible for me being here. That was just the intuitive feeling that was overwhelming. And it was indeed a "feeling". In other words, I never actually saw or interacted with this supreme being other than within the confines of my own mind. And even that interaction was highly intuitive. By that I mean is was more of a sense that this other being was there. It wasn't an actual 'vision' of some entity actually conversing with me in any normal way.

A second very strongly intuitive feeling I had was that I have always existed. There was never a time when I was not, and there will never be a time when I will cease to exist. I also had very vague memories of having lived lives before, but nothing concrete enough that I could pin down to any specific place or time.

For me these concept within my mind were as "real" as reality.

Since that time I have come to realize that our imagination can indeed seem as real as reality and that this doesn't mean that it is.

So I have realized that I need to even bring my own personal experiences into question in terms of just how real they might actually be.

Anything that happens within my mind could indeed be nothing more than a fabrication of my own imagination. And this is true of anyone who has what they believe to be divine visions.

I might add also, that I have indeed had divine vision many times throughout my life. But that doesn't mean that they were anything more than my own imagination.

Even I can't say with certainty that they were anything more than this.

In fact, I hold that this is necessarily true of anyone who has divine visions.

So personal experience can never be a meaningful argument in debate.

But it can be an explanation for why someone personally believes something.

[Overcomer]

Wordleymaster1 wrote:

But when push comes to shove, the only evidence a believer TRULY has about God is their personal experience so is their view any more powerful/relevant to others than a former Christian's

That's a broad generalization which isn't true. I have often commented here that there is evidence for God -- cosmological, axiological, teleological, historical, ontological, etc., AND experiential. I believe because of the sum total of all that evidence, experiential evidence only being one of the evidences that have convinced me.

Christianity involves both a head and a heart knowledge of God. The two are equally important and the two must be kept in balance.

As for "former Christians", what do you mean by that?

Being a Christian in fact is being in a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It begins with a person's conversion. A conversion involves someone being born again. We are all born dead in sin. When we accept Christ, he brings us alive in him. A person cannot be "unborn" spiritually any more than they can be "unborn" physically.

However, there are nominal Christians, that is, people who attend church and Bible studies, etc., but never enter into a relationship with the Lord, are never filled with the Holy Spirit, and who are never born again. When these people leave the church, they may call themselves "former Christians", meaning that they once attended church and participated in Christian services, etc. But they were never Christians in fact.

There are also cultural Christians, that is, people who don't believe in God at all, but live according to Judeo-Christian standards of morality. Many atheists fall into this category.

Are there people calling themselves Christian who can't give you reasons for their belief? I'm sure there are. There are indeed some people who believe blindly -- and that's not just true of Christians, but of Hindus and Muslims and, yes, even atheists hold beliefs without valid evidence.

However, there is no need for Christians to believe blindly because there is evidence that warrants their trust in God. To dismiss all Christians as people who believe only because of feelings from experiences is to judge them unfairly and inaccurately.

[Divine Insight]

Being a Christian in fact is being in a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It begins with a person's conversion. A conversion involves someone being born again. We are all born dead in sin. When we accept Christ, he brings us alive in him. A person cannot be "unborn" spiritually any more than they can be "unborn" physically.

If there were any truth to this claim then any Christian who has been 'born again' in Christ should never sin again, from that moment forward.

After all, how could they possibly sin if they have been infilled with the Holy Spirit?

Moreover, all of these 'born again' Christians who supposedly have a "Personal relationship" with God through Jesus Christ should all be in 100% agreement with each other concerning spiritual matters, specifically in matters concerning the wants and desires of Jesus and God.

But we never see perfectly sinless Christians who are all in complete agreement with each other. So where are these spirit-filled people?

If they exist, they haven't shown themselves in any convincing way.

Most certainly the vast majority of people who claim to be 'Christians' do not exhibit perfectly sinless behavior, nor do they exhibit consensual agreement on what Jesus and God want or expect from people.

So these supposed "born again" Christians seem to be very elusive creatures indeed. So rare that no one has ever seen one.

[Suzy]

If we take this to its logical conclusion then we cant believe in anything because for every belief or non belief there is a counter argument. I am an atheist and have been told by theists that Satan is blinding me to the truth. Can I be 100% sure that they are wrong?
I once woke up to see a witch walking past my bed. The witch was as real as anything I have ever seen. So do I now believe in witches? No I don’t, but why not? There are some people out there that, having had my experience of the witch would really start to believe in witches.
I think all we can do is to dismiss all personal experiences, [even our own] and go with the best scientific testifiable evidence we have because that’s the best we can do.

[Adstar]

There is A LOT of seemed emphasis on one's own personal experience. Christians believe God is real based on their feelings and experiences. What about non-Christians or former Christians? Are their experience and feelings any less valuable than Christians?
A lot of times believers seem to act like "well I believe so should you because whatever". But when push comes to shove, the only evidence a believer TRULY has about God is their personal experience so is their view any more powerful/relevant to others than a former Christian's?
Situation:
2 guys, one a Christian one a former Christian. You talk to both of them asking them the same questions. You get vastly different answers. Which one holds more weight? Which one SHOULD hold more weight? Are they treated as equals?

You seem to be forgetting the actual message of the Bible. A Christian can base their believe because the message of the Bible so moved them that they where convinced by it to believe. This is separate from simply religious feeling experiences like visions or dreams of heightened emotional states.

[Suzy]

There is A LOT of seemed emphasis on one's own personal experience. Christians believe God is real based on their feelings and experiences. What about non-Christians or former Christians? Are their experience and feelings any less valuable than Christians?
A lot of times believers seem to act like "well I believe so should you because whatever". But when push comes to shove, the only evidence a believer TRULY has about God is their personal experience so is their view any more powerful/relevant to others than a former Christian's?
Situation:
2 guys, one a Christian one a former Christian. You talk to both of them asking them the same questions. You get vastly different answers. Which one holds more weight? Which one SHOULD hold more weight? Are they treated as equals?

You seem to be forgetting the actual message of the Bible. A Christian can base their believe because the message of the Bible so moved them that they where convinced by it to believe. This is separate from simply religious feeling experiences like visions or dreams of heightened emotional states.

An individual may read a religious book and be convinced that it’s the truth. But in getting to the point when they believe they start to rely on ‘faith’ and faith is a personal experience so the point made by the OP is valid.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to Overcomer]

If a Christian is someone who is born again, rather than one who believes they are born again then the existence of a Christian is as debatable as the existence of God.

I once believed I was born again and forgiven of my sins. I believed I had a personal relationship with God and that He spoke to me through the bible. I considered myself a Christian and now I do not. Many true Christians are now former Christians.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

There is A LOT of seemed emphasis on one's own personal experience.

I propose that's cause that's what's most of us experience.

Christians believe God is real based on their feelings and experiences. What about non-Christians or former Christians? Are their experience and feelings any less valuable than Christians?

'Pends on conditions. My feeling is, that I'll brew me a batch at my pleasure. Others disagree about if I oughta.

A lot of times believers seem to act like "well I believe so should you because whatever". But when push comes to shove, the only evidence a believer TRULY has about God is their personal experience so is their view any more powerful/relevant to others than a former Christian's?

That's another 'pender.

You're being very vague.

Situation:
2 guys, one a Christian one a former Christian. You talk to both of them asking them the same questions. You get vastly different answers. Which one holds more weight? Which one SHOULD hold more weight?

The one who can show he speaks truth.

Are they treated as equals?

Yes.

'Til one of 'em can show they speak truth, I'll consider it, that none of 'em has.

[OnceConvinced]

As for "former Christians", what do you mean by that?

Being a Christian in fact is being in a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It begins with a person's conversion. A conversion involves someone being born again. We are all born dead in sin. When we accept Christ, he brings us alive in him. A person cannot be "unborn" spiritually any more than they can be "unborn" physically.

However, there are nominal Christians, that is, people who attend church and Bible studies, etc., but never enter into a relationship with the Lord, are never filled with the Holy Spirit, and who are never born again. When these people leave the church, they may call themselves "former Christians", meaning that they once attended church and participated in Christian services, etc. But they were never Christians in fact.

Here we go again. Another claim that us Ex-Christians were never true Christians to begin with. So what if they spent the majority of their lives believing without a doubt they were serving Jesus and believed they were in a personal relationship with him - praying to him, studying his word, etc etc. So what if nobody once warned them they weren't true Christians at the time (in fact the opposite) So what if all their fellow Christians and Jesus himself just let this person go through so many years believing they were true Christians. So what if they were put in positions of responsibility by other church leaders who thought they were genuine Christians. So what if they were born again and baptized. Let's just flag away their life experiences and their genuine beliefs and actions as if they were nothing. Let's just look down our noses at them as if we are somehow superior and that we are true Christians while they never were.

Really, Overcomer. Do you not realize that you put up a big wall between yourself and Ex-Christians when you make claims like this? I actually find them highly insulting and disrespectful. I also find it bewildering that you wish to ignore so many scriptures in your holy book that state it's possible for someone to be a Christian, to have experienced the holy spirit even and then fall out.

Even Paul himself stated he could fall from the faith: I Corinthians 9:27

Heb 6:4-6 even states that those who tasted the Holy Spirit and who fall away can't come back, which is quite clearly stating you can be an ex-Christian.

Rev 3:5 states that God will not remove your name from the book of life if you overcome, which then implies that it CAN be removed if you fail to overcome.

Judas was the very first Ex-Christian. He could not have been a disciple of Christ at all if he wasn't a true Christian.

I can quote many more scriptures that contradict your idea that there is no such thing as an ex-Christian.

And if you're wondering why I get offended when people say I wasn't a true Christian, I've written this here, which you're welcome to check out. Maybe you will understand why claiming someone was never a true Christian is a slap in the fact to those who genuinely truly believed and why the people you insult cannot possibly respect you or take your seriously:

How Dare You?