? A Question For All Former Christians Who Fell Away ?

[YahDough]

This is a question addressed only to former Christians who have left the faith.

Why did you become a Christian?
[/b]

[OnceConvinced]

What makes you think I blame Jesus for anything? I no longer believe in Jesus or the God of the bible.

You told me you would consider it His fault for leading you wrong. Here's your post. I highlighted the comment.

I trusted in Jesus for over 30 years of my life believing him to be the one and only God. Believing he'd died for my sins and saved me. Believing I was hearing from him and being guided by him.

According to many Christians now, I was mistaken and I wasn't really a true Christian at all. Although no Christians ever told me that WHILE I was a Christian - in fact the opposite. That means I lived my life following a false version of Jesus, maybe even the devil himself. If this is the case then Jesus has clearly let me down big time, allowing me to be misled for many many years without making any ounce of effort to steer me in the right direction. Even though I genuinely believed I was following him, he made no efforts what so all to put me right. If these Christians are correct then one can hardly claim Jesus to be trustworthy.

Divine Insight has it in a nutshell.

Notice the "according to"
Notice the "If this is the case"
Notice the "If these Christians are correct"

I WOULD consider it Jesus's fault IF I still believed in him. After all, whose else would it be? No one ever tells you, you were a false Christian? You do everything that the bible instructs and it still doesn't work for you? The bible promises and guarantees don't work out? My fault? Hardly.

His non-action indicated to me he was a non existent being.

I may have unintentionally caused a misunderstanding. If so, I apologize.

[YahDough]

This is a question addressed only to former Christians who have left the faith.

Why did you become a Christian?
[/b]

So why did I become a Christian? I was born into it like most people, but I truly believed and had a relationship with Jesus.

I could argue that being born into Christianity is not being born again. But we have conversed earlier in this thread and I am aware of your previous devotion to your understanding of Christ.

Children who are indoctrinated into Christianity from birth, without a born again experience of their own can get false understanding of who Christ is and what He requires. So it become much easier to "shake Him off" than carry the cross He asks us to.

Why do you ask?

I have a burden for those who fall away from Christ

[Divine Insight]

Children who are indoctrinated into Christianity from birth, without a born again experience of their own can get false understanding of who Christ is and what He requires. So it become much easier to "shake Him off" than carry the cross He asks us to.

If what you say is true, then this can be no ones fault other than the Christ himself for having been such an unconvincing and inept teacher.

If anyone doesn't believe that Jesus was the Christ in their heart, then Jesus failed as a teacher. His whole mission failed. He would have failed miserably as a demigod.

Why do you ask?

I have a burden for those who fall away from Christ

Why should you be burdened by the failings of the Christ?

Also, if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have all failed miserably to convince people via their "Holy Scriptures" and their "Holy Spirit", then why should you be so bold as to think that you might be able to succeed where God and Jesus themselves failed?

I can never understand this idea people get in their heads that they could somehow succeed at something that God and Jesus both failed at.

Also, why should you feel "burdened" by this?

Don't you trust this God to save people who should be saved?

If you do absolutely nothing toward evangelism or the "saving" of souls in Jesus' name, do believe that souls who might have otherwise have been "saved" will instead be condemned?

And if so, what does that say about this God's system of justice?

If you feel burdened with a need to help people understand God or Jesus, it can only be because you believe that they have failed miserably, and that they will actually condemn souls who could otherwise be saved.

In short, if anything you do results in either the salvation or condemnation of a soul who would have otherwise ended with a different fate, then your very actions or inaction (or even your honest incompetence) would be part of God's system of justice and salvation.

But surely you can see how that would be far from perfect. On the contrary, the idea that the fate of one person's soul could depend on the action, inaction, or incompetence of another human being would render this God's system of justice totally inept and untrustworthy.

The very concept of evangelism is nothing more than a gross display of absolute distrust in God to have a dependable and trustworthy system of salvation in place.

~~~~~

So actually the mere fact that Christianity has Jesus commanding his disciples to spread his word is ultimate proof of the fallacy of this religion.

This would be a system of salvation that is dependent entirely upon random hearsay rumors, that clearly are not very convincing at all.

Everyone seems to have a different idea of what it even takes to be "saved".

I read the words attributed to this Jesus in these gospels, and as far as I can see Jesus has assured me of my salvation beyond any question. He has also assured me that there is no reason for me to even believe in him. He has also assured me that there is a 99% chance that I'm a righteous person who is not in need of repentance.

And that came straight from Jesus. (or at least straight from the Gospel rumors which is the closest thing we have to Jesus).

So why should I believe anything you have to say about Jesus?

Why should I trust you OVER Jesus?

Why should I accept your claim that Jesus was an inept teacher and has grossly misguided me through his "Holy Scriptures" whilst you supposedly have a correct understanding of him?

You'd be asking me to believe that Jesus was inept, but that you are not.

That makes no sense.

[Nickman]

This is a question addressed only to former Christians who have left the faith.

Why did you become a Christian?
[/b]

I could argue that being born into Christianity is not being born again. But we have conversed earlier in this thread and I am aware of your previous devotion to your understanding of Christ.

That is true. Just being born into it is not being born again. However; once you are old enough to decide if you truly believe and taking on that responsibility is. Adoption of the the Gospel and your responsibilities that it entails from your own personal desire to me is no different for a convert or a person who was raised in the faith.

Children who are indoctrinated into Christianity from birth, without a born again experience of their own can get false understanding of who Christ is and what He requires. So it become much easier to "shake Him off" than carry the cross He asks us to.

I would argue the opposite. Being born into something that your whole life, family friends, and everything around you revolves is much harder than a person who converts. The shame you go through when you have come to the conclusion that your deeply held beliefs are incorrect is much harder when you have to face your family and friends, your wife, your kids. So to put it frankly, the decision for the one born into the faith is much harder and that causes the doubter to have to really investigate as to not ruin the life that they share with so many fellow believers.

Like with me, I had to be 100% certain that I did not believe and that the things I did believe were completely wrong before I decided to come out to my family and friends.

I have a burden for those who fall away from Christ

What burden?

[Nickman]

I think that if you were to ask the right question you would come away with a better understanding.
That question IMO would be: How difficult was it for you to separate yourself from the Gospel as a non-believer?

[Divine Insight]

I think that if you were to ask the right question you would come away with a better understanding.
That question IMO would be: How difficult was it for you to separate yourself from the Gospel as a non-believer?

I think so too. For me it was easy to trash Christianity, because I never confused it with "God" in the first place. So when I left Christianity I took "God" with me.

Only it was never the Biblical God to begin with. I didn't get God from the Bible so when I realized the Bible was false I didn't lose God.

I think this is different for many Christians. For many Christians God comes from the Bible, therefore if the Bible is wrong, they lose God.

It just so happens the my "relationship with God" started at an extremely young age. Before I was even old enough to have learned about the Bible. So for me God was first, the Bible was merely a book that people claimed was the word of God. Therefore when I discovered that the Bible could not possibly be the word of God, all that did was convince me that the Bible has nothing to do with God. It didn't convince me that there is no God.

At this point in my life I have come to realize that there may or may not be a God. I don't claim to know. But one thing I am 100% confident about is that the Bible is not the word of God, and Jesus was not the demigod son of God.

But Jesus might have been a spiritual person. At least as spiritual as a mortal person can be. Or he could have just been mentally ill. It's impossible for us to know. And it's also totally unimportant.

~~~~~

The bottom line for me is quite simple.

Question: Should I lie to God?

Honest Answer: No.

Question: Do I believe the Old Testament is the word of God?

Honest Answer: No.

Question: Do I believe the New Testament Gospels?

Honest Answer: No.

Question: Do I believe Jesus was God, or the Son of God?

Honest Answer: No.

And that's the truth.

But Christians don't seem to be happy unless I'm willing to LIE to God.

Any atheists who seriously don't believe in the Bible or in Jesus would be a liar if they were to become a Christian.

Yet Christians somehow seem to think that this would be ok.

That's so absurd.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 215 by Divine Insight]

I would say that Jesus was a revolutionary in his time that saw the injustice of the political and religious bureaucracy. The entire faith was dictated by a few high individuals that told everyone how to worship, and when to worship and Jesus called them out on it and showed how they were not obeying the Law themselves. Later he was made into a god by his followers and years of hearsay.

[McCulloch]

Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support its accuracy.

Ever hear of "making mountains out of mole hills?"
Creation has the (rhema) word of God to support its accuracy.

It would be more correct to say that creation has the word of those who claim to speak for God as support. Evolution has actual evidence.

With Creation there is a starting point. Evolution can't even address the beginning point. Evolution theory just assumes the process.

It is correct that evolution does not address the starting point. It looks at what does exist: the diversity of living entities, and provides a process that explains it and that matches available evidence.

Still, not knowing how life started does not disprove the fact that evolution occurs.

Yes it does. Without a "start point" there is nothing to "evolve."

Of course there was a starting point. The fact that we have yet to uncover all of the details of that starting point does not nullify what we have learned about the process since then.

[KenRU]

Are you kiddig??? Your very existence is evidence of the power of God.

And your evidence to support such a claim?

I told you, Ken. You are the evidence.

How do you know that I’m not the product of space aliens? Or Allah? Or any of the Roman gods?

Because no matter "Who" created you, you're still a creation. Can't you accept the fact that you are a created being?

Sure, I’m the product of my parents. No supernatural involvement was necessary.

Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support its accuracy.

Ever hear of "making mountains out of mole hills?"

Creation has the (rhema) word of God to support its accuracy.

With Creation there is a starting point. Evolution can't even address the beginning point. Evolution theory just assumes the process.

Still, not knowing how life started does not disprove the fact that evolution occurs.

Yes it does. Without a "start point" there is nothing to "evolve."

Who said there isn’t a starting point? Admitting to not knowing and trying to learn what caused life to begin is far more nobler than to make up stuff or putting one’s head in the sand.

And the thing about creation is that God can do it quickly. He doesn't need six billion years to go from an ameba to an elephant.

You know this how? Please cite your evidence.

The dude is GOD, man. Who can give time constraints to God?

Six billion years is too long. Our sun would have burned out long before that.

Just a quick google search showed how wrong your science is. The sun has existed for about 4.6 billion years, life has been on our planet for about 3.8 billion years, and our sun should last another 7 billion years.

You're getting your info from the 95% who don't seem to have "common sense".
Statistics like these are based on false premises, like evolution is true and the sun had to be around that long for it to be true.

So, its “common sense� to disagree with science (these facts that scientists use to determine such things) when it contradicts a bronze age holy book?

On some issues, yes. The word of the Lord endures forever. It's ridiculous to think our sun has been pumping linear amounts of heat for billions of years.

I assume you trust science when you get immunized? Drive a car? Fly in airplane? Wear glasses? Utilize your microwave? Watch TV? Science is fine then, I assume?

I don't "trust" science. I use it. I "trust" the Word of God.

Why do you suddenly trust those scientists who don’t have “common sense� then? The answer of course, is that the products of science have been shown to work.

Look Ken...I have nothing against science. I use it every day. Christ created it. But contemporary science does not always get it right and the Word of God can trump the scientific method every time.

Evolution has just as much evidence (if not more) to show that it occurs as gravity does. It also has been shown to work (immunizations, domestication of animals, DNA, etc).

As I said before, the evidence of Darwinian evolution is based on false and/or misleading premises. Time should make that clear.

Time thus far has proved that the opposite is occurring. More and more data seem to be confirming evolution, not disproving it.

Here's some interesting read if you have time:

EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. .... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229.

Richard Dawkins is very well known evolutionist en author and professor zoology at the Oxford university.

Whatever site you cut and paste this stuff from seems to be very disingenuous. The fact that you are attempting to utilize a Richard Dawkins quote (out of context by the way), to assert that evolution has been debunked is ludicrous to say the least.

Are you seriously arguing that Richard Dawkins asserts that evolution has been debunked?

[Divine Insight]

Are you seriously arguing that Richard Dawkins asserts that evolution has been debunked?

IMHO, when people reach that level of blatant dishonesty it's crystal clear that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel in extreme desperation to find things, that when taken out of context, can give the misguided appearance of supporting their unsupportable arguments.

All that just to pretend they can lay claim to a highly respected and recognized name in science as supporting their nonsense. Anyone who is familiar with Richard Dawkins can clearly see the extreme underhandedness and dishonesty of this false insinuation.

It's a clear sign that apologists of ancient mythology have nothing concrete to offer and are clearly out of ammo. As if they ever had any ammo to begin with.