Ex-Christians are powerful voices against Christianity

[Zzyzx]

.
Ex-Christians are powerful voices against Christianity

Since they were once Believers (perhaps very devout), they have insider knowledge of dogma, doctrine, practices, rituals, and literature. No amount of ‘you weren’t really Christian’ can discredit what they experienced and what they say. ‘Your cult wasn’t REAL Christianity (like mine is)’ rings exceedingly hollow and self-serving.

Apostates came to realize (often after decades) that they were duped and may be angry about the time and devotion that they wasted chasing an illusion. Some may offer assistance and/or encouragement for others to question what they are told to believe – and find a way out.

Several very capable Non-Theist debaters here are prime examples of escaped Christians. Others post at www.ExChristian.net and www.ClergyProject.org. Others of us never drank the Kool-Aid but have experience dealing with Christians who attempt to push their beliefs onto others with social pressure, emotional appeals, threats, promises, and/or legislation.

[OnceConvinced]

Well, I think this would depend on the answer to certain questions?

1. First, was this individual raised in the Church, and how long after they became of age, did they continue to believe the things they were taught?

2. Did this person convert as an adult, and how long were they a Christian before coming to reject?

3. What caused them to become convinced, and embrace Christianity as being true?

4. Do they now claim they really did not engage the mind, or did not use it properly when making to decision to become, and, or remain to be a Christian?

5. Do they now claim there would be no good reasons to believe Christianity to be true?

I have a question for you. What must one do to consider oneself a true Christian? What is it they can do that guarantees their salvation and ensures they're not just kidding themselves?

You see, it would be these, and other questions which may give us some sort of idea, what sort of person we are dealing with? In other words, if they say, "I did not use the mind, or did not use the mind properly when making such a major life decision", and they go on to say now, "there would be no good reasons to believe Christianity to be true", then I think we have just demonstrated one who will make major life decisions, without thinking very critically through what they embrace to be true, and we can be sure of this, since they now claim to have embraced something as true, which there would be no good reasons to believe.

Going by what you are saying here, it sounds like it's a very difficult thing to become a true Christian. How does one ensure they're simply not just kidding themselves?

I really do not see how this sort of person, could possibly be a, "powerful voice against Christianity" when they claim to embrace something with all their heart, mind, (oops, well maybe not the mind) soul, body, and money for years, that they now claim there would be no good reasons to believe?

It seems you don't understand how indoctrination works and how difficult it is to break free from that indoctrination.

I'm wondering what you would think of someone who was say a Muslim all their life and then realised what they believed was a lie. Would you count them as being worthless when it comes to speaking against Islam? Would you flag them away as easily as you flag away ex-Christians?

I find it offensive that you would flag a life time of sincere belief away in the manner you are doing it here. It's a slap in the face to people who genuinely believed.

I would rather think that most unbelievers would rather such a one, stay out of the conversation?

I would think that they would want to speak up so that others would not be fooled into believe it as they were.

And I think that deep down you know they are powerful voices against Christianity, which is why you are doing your best to discredit them.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Ex-Christians are not powerful voices against Christianity.

Here's why:
1. They will not find more ethical and moral character with "Atheists" or non-believers.

I'm not seeing how this is relevent to how powerful a voice someone has. But i can tell you that what you are saying here is not true. I have lived many years as a Christian and can safely say they are no more moral than atheists. They are no better ethically and morally.

2. They fail to separate the crooked hypocrites from the good, religious people.

I'm not seeing how this is relevent either. And since when is it the ex-Christian's job to seperate the crooked from the good? When was it anyone's job but God's to judge who are the true and who are the false Christian? You?

I've mixed and mingled with hundreds of Christians over they year. Most of them are very sincere believers who wish to be like Jesus, but they all fail in one way or another.

Neverthless, it's not my job to decide who are true and who are false.

3. Life on Earth is lived with God's grace as much as Heaven is entered by God's grace as well in addition to the fact that the 10 Commandments have been respected throughout

Yet another irrelevent argument.

4. They may require Best practice psychiatry in suffering from traumas and that this may be the real cause in departing from Christianity.

What about those of us who never suffered trauma as a Christian? I was mainly treated well by Christians. I rarely had bad experiences and never hold any of them against Jesus or the churches I was part of.

Contrary to what you might think, there are many of us ex-Christians who didn't have bad experiences.

Welcome back, Ex-Christians! The Bible is yours to keep as with all others!

Well, Hallelujah!

[OnceConvinced]

OH? I'm sorry? I thought we were talking about folks who really think, and are concerned about what the truth may actually be?

I find this extremely arrogant and insulting. Are you insinuating that I'm not concerned with truth?' That I don't think?

But I guess you are simply talking about those who are not really concerned about what the truth may be, and are only concerned with, whose arguments, SEEMS more convincing? My bad!

Shouldn't the truth be more convincing?
Are you trying to insinuate that I am only interested in winning arguments?

I will point out that I have not had to many conversations with "OC" but I do believe I did in fact get into some of these things with him, when I have had the opportunity. But then, I am not really all that concerned with simply winning arguments, but am rather more concerned as to what the truth may be.

It's good to know what you think of me. I'm just here to win arguments. Is that how you justify flagging away ex-Christians?

I have a failing hope that people here might be able to convince me to believe again. Which is one reason why I argue. I am concerned with truth very much. I want the truth to be what wins through.

You've gotta come with sound arguments to enable me to be convinced again, because God's certainly not doing anything about it.

But, what I would like you to know is, I am not at all shocked by the fact that there are many, ex-Christians. I was not shocked when I came to the site to find a great deal of the unbelievers here were once Christians. In fact, I expected just that.

I've come to expect it too.

I also expect this to continue to happen on a large scale,

Well yeah, education for one. That's a powerful reason why people become ex-Christians.

As I have been saying, there seem to be some who are more concerned with how an argument is being perceived, than they seem to be, about what the actual truth may be?

Or maybe you are just so convinced you have the truth that you automatically brand everyone else as just being argumentative?

You, you've got the truth, right? Everyone else is just looking to win a debate.

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you suppose that readers (the people being addressed) go through such a process when evaluating what is said by such Ex-Christians as OnceConvinced? I do not recall anyone asking him such questions.

OH? I'm sorry? I thought we were talking about folks who really think, and are concerned about what the truth may actually be? But I guess you are simply talking about those who are not really concerned about what the truth may be,

If you don’t think OC is a powerful voice, why put effort into attempting to discredit him – and make yourself look rather small in the process?

and are only concerned with, whose arguments, SEEMS more convincing? My bad!

Many seem to lose sight of the fact that these debates are viewed by many people (714 visitors in the past 24 hours – and some threads receive tens of thousands of views).

Readers decide what is convincing to THEM. If a poster is not considering the readers, WHO is he addressing? Himself? His own ego? His choir?

I will point out that I have not had to many conversations with "OC" but I do believe I did in fact get into some of these things with him, when I have had the opportunity. But then, I am not really all that concerned with simply winning arguments, but am rather more concerned as to what the truth may be.

Those who earnestly ‘search for truth’ would be well advised to consult more credible sources.
If a person discovers ‘truth’ here, it is by accident. Almost everything presented in these debates consists of personal views and opinions – not ‘truth’.

How does one seek truth on an internet debate Forum about virgin birth, reanimation of corpses, talking donkeys and snakes, humanity tracing to two people – one magically made from dust and the other magically made from a rib, worldwide flood ‘to the tops of mountains’?

Those who are seeking truth would be well advised to consult actual experts in the field (read their publications) – legitimate historians rather than pretend / wannabe anonymous posters on an internet forum; actual astrophysicists rather than people speculating about origin of the universe; qualified geneticists rather than theologians and apologists when seeking information about evolution.

When seeking truth I darn sure don’t place great confidence in those who learn about the universe and its contents / processes by reading ancient texts written by people who didn’t know where the sun went at night; learn botany and zoology at the level of ignorance typical of thousands of years ago; learn Earth science from those who are convinced the Earth was poofed into existence perhaps a few thousand years ago and was flooded ‘to the tops of mountains’; learn human biology from those who think all humans descended from two people and who talk of long-dead humans coming back to life.

What ‘truth’ is to be learned from those who claim to know about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities – among thousands proposed by and worshiped by humans – but who can provide no verifiable evidence that any of their claims and stories are anything more than products of human imagination?

I also expect this to continue to happen on a large scale, and I believe there to be many factors involved. One of those factors is the fact that there are many Churches out there, who are not really concerned about the truth, and are rather more concerned about winning converts.

I agree. Has it been determined which churches, if any, are concerned about truth rather than customers (sometimes called parishioners)? Determined by whom? On what authority?

With this being the case, these Churches will do whatever they can to win them, and there will always be folks who will get swept away with the emotions, and leave the mind behind. Therefore, when, and if these folks begin to use the mind, it will not take a whole lot to talk them out of Christianity. In other words, since it did not take a whole lot of thinking to get them to embrace Christianity, then it will not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out. This is what I call, "easy in, easy out".

I disagree. It appears as though most become Christians in childhood – before judgment and discernment have developed for them. Once indoctrinated, it is difficult for people to reject what they have been convinced to believe. Discussions of the difficulty are readily available on www.ExChristian.net, www.ClergyProject.org and similar sites. Let’s not hand wave away what is said by people involved.

I suggest, instead, that readers evaluate his credibility based on what he writes – and that many find him MUCH more credible than those attempting to promote or defend Christianity (or denigrate apostates).

Which would not have a thing to do with, what the truth may be. But hey, if that is what you are into, the please go right ahead.

See above. Readers decide.

Compare OC’s posts to those of the more vocal Apologists. Which are more likely to be powerful influence upon readers considering their own position regards Christianity?

As I have been saying, there seem to be some who are more concerned with how an argument is being perceived, than they seem to be, about what the actual truth may be?

I truly appreciate Apologists who are unconcerned about how their posts are perceived – while professing to search for ‘truth’ but whose posts demonstrate attempts to justify their own beliefs while denigrating opponents.

Carry on

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

No. Accepting Jesus doesn't demonstrate they merit eternal life. It demonstrates that they were very aware of the laws. By standing behind Jesus they admit the law stands. For if there was no law; that Jesus replaced the law then why are they hiding behind Jesus.

Jesus even made mention of this

Admitting that you know of the law but choose to hide ( or let God kill himself) rather than be obedient to the law only tightens the noose. Yeah....eternal life in paradise. Go to heaven? A Christian doesn't want a relationship with God. If they did they'd do it here and now. They'll be miserable if they had to hang out with God. They only want jesus . And why would God want them with him in the hereafter? So they can thumb their nose at him with one hand and hold Jesus' hand with the other.

THE LAW STANDS AND THEY KNOW IT. AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS IT SERVES AS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT YOU SIN WILLINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY.
Understand the laws if sacrifice. Sacrifices are only for UNINTENTIINAL SINS. Therefore even if you want to toss Jesus into a volcano or nail him to a tree he can not atobe fir blatant disobedience. Christians can expect a rude awakening at their resurrection. But Gid us merciful. He let them enjoy the life they chose. Going to the grave with a smile on their face. They got their peace on Earth. They didn't fear God. They should have waited for the true riches. They didn't want God interfering with their good times. Because they don't trust God to be there for them in death. They have got what they wanted. They shouldn't expect God to give them what they don't want. Serving him

[JJ50]

Avoice that is your opinion, but your can't back it up with any verifiable evidence as there is none.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 21 by OnceConvinced]

I think everyone involved here needs to tap the brakes a bit, and pause for a moment. I never said, "Ex-Christians would never be powerful voice against Christianity". Rather, what I said was, "I think". Now, what does, "I think" mean?, And what did I say it was that, "I think"? Well it was,

this would depend

Okay? So what would it "depend" on? Well, I gave a list of 5 questions I would like to ask this "ex-Christian" (and there would be more as well) before I, decide whether I, believe they would be, "powerful voices against Christianity"?

I would like to go on into why I would have liked to asked these questions, but at this point, I think I need to defend myself because it seems I am being accused of things, which I do not believe I am guilty of?

First, I am not the one who brought you, "Onceconvinced" into the conversation. That would have been "Zzyzx." And so, what was it I had to say about you personally? Well, the only thing I said concerning you would be,

I will point out that I have not had to many conversations with "OC" but I do believe I did in fact get into some of these things with him, when I have had the opportunity.

That's it! That is all I had to say concerning you, and yet somehow, I seem to be accused of, questioning whether you would have been a true believer, which I did not. Insinuating that you are not concerned with the truth, which I never did. You accuse me of saying you do not think, and that never happened. That you were only out to win arguments, etc., and the fact of the matter is, as far as I can see, I only had 2 things to say, concerning you personally. Let's go back through the conversation to demonstrate this.

In my first post on this thread, I simply pointed out that I would like to ask the ex-Christian a few questions, before I decide if their voice would be a powerful voice against Christianity, and listed the questions. "Zzyzx" responds by saying,

Do you suppose that readers (the people being addressed) go through such a process when evaluating what is said by such Ex-Christians as OnceConvinced? I do not recall anyone asking him such questions.

This is the first time you were brought into the conversation, and it was not by me. What "Zzyzx" seems to be saying is, "readers (the people being addressed, which would not be you) really do not seem to bother with the questions I bring up, and are simply impressed with the arguments being made, and what it sounds like to me, is being said is, "the readers (those being addressed) are not going to think as much about it, as I do".

So then, to this I respond by saying,

OH? I'm sorry? I thought we were talking about folks who really think, and are concerned about what the truth may actually be? But I guess you are simply talking about those who are not really concerned about what the truth may be, and are only concerned with, whose arguments, SEEMS more convincing? My bad!

So then, who is this referring too? That would be the readers. Not you. In other words, I was under the impression that we here, on this thread were going to attempt to think through the question of the OP, to determine if the arguments of ex-Christians would indeed be powerful, but it seems we are simply talking about how the arguments will be perceived by those on the outside looking in. With this being the case, there is really no need in me going through, thinking, and analyzing the mindset of the ex-Christian, because all that seems to be involved here is, the way the argument will be perceived, in spite of any of that.

The main point is, this had nothing whatsoever to do with you, and your thinking, rather it has to do with my misunderstanding that we were going to actually analyze the arguments made by ex-Christians, when all we seem to be doing is to ask, how the arguments will be perceived?

I would also like to point out that, I am not saying, "those who are reading these post, do not think". That seemed to be said, when it was said, "Do you suppose that readers (the people being addressed) go through such a process when evaluating what is said by such Ex-Christians?" What is the "process" being talked about here? Well, that would be the "process" of asking questions.

But the question now is, how could any of this, have anything at all to do with you? How am I accused of calling you out for not thinking, not caring about the truth, simply wanting to win arguments? That never happened!

And how could this happen, when I have already admitted, that you, and I have not had that many conversations? So how would I know what your thinking process is? This is exactly why I would like to ask the questions I would like to pose, in order to understand this?

Now, I am surely going to address some of the other things you, and "Zzyzx" have to say, but first I wanted to get this post out, in order to understand, how, and why I am being accused of these things?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 21 by OnceConvinced]

I have a question for you. What must one do to consider oneself a true Christian? What is it they can do that guarantees their salvation and ensures they're not just kidding themselves?

I have never questioned as to whether you would have been a true believer or not. In fact, from reading your post, it is clear to me that you truly once believed, and it also seems clear that you embraced Christianity. So, I do not know where this misunderstanding could have come in? In other words, I do not see how my 5 questions would have been questioning your sincerity?

Going by what you are saying here, it sounds like it's a very difficult thing to become a true Christian. How does one ensure they're simply not just kidding themselves?

No! I have never said a thing about it being difficult to become a Christian. What I am saying is, there are those who actually sit down to, read, study, and analyze all the facts, and evidence involved before making the decision to become a Christian, and then there are those who say, they were swept away with emotions, and their mind was not all that engaged, or they were brought up as a Christian, and did not really think about it all that much.

That's it! That is all I am saying. In other words, there are Christians who truly think through what it is they believe, and why they believe it, and then there are Christians who do not seem to think very much at all. So then, when you have Christians who did not think very much at all to become convinced Christianity was true, then it may not take all that much thinking to convinced them it is false?

It seems you don't understand how indoctrination works and how difficult it is to break free from that indoctrination.

Okay? Well, I am certainly not going to attempt to argue with you about being "indoctrinated". In other words, if you say this happened to you, then I will take your word for it.

However, I will point out that many folks seem to use this word loosely. As an example, there are those here on this site, who once they hear that I was raised in a Christian home, and that my dad was an ordained minister, they then begin to say that I was "indoctrinated". In other words, anytime one is raised in the Church, they must, and had to be indoctrinated.

However, "indoctrination" is a pretty tricky word. In other words, it can mean, only to teach, but then others have in mind the idea of, "teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically", while still others have in mind something like, brainwashing. So then, I am a little skeptical when I hear someone use the word, "indoctrination".

As I said, I have been labeled as being "indoctrinated" many times here on this site, and it would really depend on the definition being used? If it is simply meant, I was taught about Christianity, then this would be correct. If however, one is insinuating that I would have been taught to accept Christianity uncritically, or that I was brainwashed, then this would be completely false.

So, you would be correct, I do not know much about what it would be like to be exposed to what I guess we can refer to as, "extreme indoctrination". However, if you were indeed exposed to this sort of indoctrination, then I can only imagine you would have been exposed to some very reckless theology as well. Because you see, the only reason to attempt to force folks to think uncritically, is if what is being taught goes against reason, and it is better for folks to turn the thinking off.

With all this being the case, you may not have really rejected Christianity at all, but rather the reckless theology you were exposed to? This is sort of what happened to me.

Although I was not "indoctrinated", I was brought up in the Church, but I had no problem at all simply not going to Church when I became of age, and myself, and my girlfriend at the time, who became my wife, never really gave it much thought. It was not until we began to have children, and my family wanted to come by and take my kids to Church, that I began to understand I would eventually have to tell my children, something about Christianity.

Well I will not go into all the details, but because of this, I set out to learn all I could concerning Christianity, and I went through a lot of material, from both sides of the equation. Of course, in the end I came away convinced Christianity was indeed true, but I rejected much of the theology that I was exposed to as a child, so much so that, I, nor my children could worship with my mom, dad, and many life long friends, because I did not want my kids exposed to such things.

My whole point being here is, if I had only studied, and analyzed the theology I was exposed to, then it would be possible to come to the conclusion that I had rejected Christianity, when the fact of the matter would be, what I was exposed to, would be a reckless form of Christianity, which should be rejected, but this would not mean that I had actually rejected Christianity, even if I believed that I had. You really need to think about that.

I'm wondering what you would think of someone who was say a Muslim all their life and then realised what they believed was a lie. Would you count them as being worthless when it comes to speaking against Islam? Would you flag them away as easily as you flag away ex-Christians?

This is amazing! All I have said concerning, ex-Christians being powerful voices against Christianity, is that I would like to ask them some questions before I would make such a decision, and you think this is, "easily flagging ex-Christians away"? Are you suggesting that I should rather simply accept it as fact, uncritically, without thinking? As far as a Muslim, I would be asking the same things.

I find it offensive that you would flag a life time of sincere belief away in the manner you are doing it here. It's a slap in the face to people who genuinely believed.

What is a "slap in the face" is when you are accused of something you have not done? Unless of course you are under the impression that asking someone a few questions before deciding is the same as, rejecting what they are saying? In other words, you seem to want me to accept what you are saying, uncritically?

I said,

I would rather think that most unbelievers would rather such a one, stay out of the conversation?

To which you reply,

I would think that they would want to speak up so that others would not be fooled into believe it as they were.

I would like to point out here, that my sentence you quote would be out of context. In other words, this sentence would have been qualified before, with the idea that such a person made the major life decision to become a Christian, and claims they did not really use the mind to make such a major decision, and now wants us to believe there is really no reason to believe Christianity at all.

Again, this is why I would like to ask the questions. If this would not include you, then I am not including you, and it would not be rejecting the idea that there may indeed be ex-Christians who are powerful voices against Christianity. Rather, it is simply pointing out that, maybe not all ex-Christians would be powerful voices.

And I think that deep down you know they are powerful voices against Christianity, which is why you are doing your best to discredit them.

I will assure you, that you have this all wrong. Seriously! I could not care less if your testimony convinces the world, and Christianity dries up to nothing. I am simply a person who like to share ideas, and beliefs, and I am here only for myself. In other words, being here, and exposing myself to those opposed, helps me to better think through what it is, I believe myself.

[Tcg]

It seems you don't understand how indoctrination works and how difficult it is to break free from that indoctrination.

You are right of course. Only those who have broken away permanently can understand it. Taking a brief vacation from one's indoctrination and then running back to it like a child to its security blanket doesn't qualify.


Tcg

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 23 by OnceConvinced]

I said,

OH? I'm sorry? I thought we were talking about folks who really think, and are concerned about what the truth may actually be?

To which you say,

I find this extremely arrogant and insulting. Are you insinuating that I'm not concerned with truth?' That I don't think?

How in the world did you get the impression that I was referring to you? I was not, and explained this in a previous post. The way in which I understand him, (and I may not understand him correctly, because you are certainly not understanding me correctly, which could be my fault) "Zzyzx" seems to be saying, "the readers are not going to be concerned all that much with the sort of questions I may ask. Rather, they will simply be persuaded, by someone who used to be a Christian, and now has rejected.

Ergo, it is those he is referring to, who it seems would simply be accepting what was said, without ever thinking critically about it, who I would be referring to, who must not really be all that concerned with the actual truth, and simply go with the argument that seems more appealing. So then, these are the only ones I would be referring to, "who do not think", and apparently are not all that concerned with "the truth of the matter", and I am not including you.

Shouldn't the truth be more convincing?

I'm not so sure about that? Because you see, I have been to a number of debates between Atheists, and Christians, and there have been times when the Atheist clearly won the debate, along with times when the Christian won the debate, and if I were to simply go with the argument which seemed "more convincing" at the time, then I would walk out an Atheist one day, only to walk out a Christian, the next.

Are you trying to insinuate that I am only interested in winning arguments?

Again, this had nothing whatsoever to do with you. Listen! "Zzyzx" is pointing to the audience, and claiming that it is the audience who decides. Well, what is it they decide? That would be, which argument is more convincing to them. Well, I am not interested at all in the audience, which means I am unconcerned as to whether the argument I am making, is convincing to the audience. Rather, I am simply having a conversation with another member, which other people may read, but I am not concerned as to whether I win arguments, and or persuade folks, because this is not my goal. My goal is to attempt to get to the truth of the matter, no matter the subject, even if it means that I am the one in error.

I do not know how to better explain it, but it had nothing to do with you, and I think it should tell us something, when one seems concerned about what those who may be reading are thinking, because I never think about this. In other words, it seems as if, there may be those here who are more concerned with, changing the mind of others, and this is not my goal in the least.

Is that how you justify flagging away ex-Christians?

Please explain to me, how I am "flagging away ex-Christians" simply by wanting to ask them a few questions, before I decide if I would consider them to be, "powerful voices against Christianity"?

I have a failing hope that people here might be able to convince me to believe again.

DO WHAT? I'm sorry, and I am not trying to be offensive, but I cannot for the life of me understand this? Because you see, if I were to be able to choose what it is I believe, I will assure you that Christianity would not be on the list. I mean, who would want to believe it?

I am concerned with truth very much. I want the truth to be what wins through.

And I earnestly believe you when you say this! The problem is, we can both say the same thing, and even if we are both earnest about it, this does not in any way determine what the truth is. In other words, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt, that I am only concerned with the truth, and it could also be demonstrated that I am absolutely convinced Christianity is true, this would still have no bearing upon the matter. Not even for me!

You've gotta come with sound arguments to enable me to be convinced again, because God's certainly not doing anything about it.

Well, whether you want to believe it, or not, I am not concerned with attempting to, "convince you again".

I said,

But, what I would like you to know is, I am not at all shocked by the fact that there are many, ex-Christians. I was not shocked when I came to the site to find a great deal of the unbelievers here were once Christians. In fact, I expected just that.

To which you reply,

I've come to expect it too.

I'm sure. However, I highly doubt "we expect" this for the same reasons. Because you see, I know the type of Churches out there, and I know that many of them are only looking to add numbers, and they will use just about any means possible to achieve this goal. I also know, there are many, many Christians, who do not think very much, and they really cannot explain what it is they believe, nor why they believe it, and therefore, since they did not use their minds to embrace Christianity, it will more than likely not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out. Ergo, we will continue to see this same thing occurring, since there are so many, weak minded Christians.

Well yeah, education for one. That's a powerful reason why people become ex-Christians.

Right! Now that will get you to the truth. Like there are not, and have never been, very educated, and highly intelligent, Christians?

I said,

As I have been saying, there seem to be some who are more concerned with how an argument is being perceived, than they seem to be, about what the actual truth may be?

To which you reply,

Or maybe you are just so convinced you have the truth that you automatically brand everyone else as just being argumentative?

You, you've got the truth, right? Everyone else is just looking to win a debate.

What I said, would have nothing whatsoever to do with me claiming to have the truth. Rather, what I am saying is, "there seem to be some who are more concerned with how an argument is being perceived, than they seem to be, about what the actual truth" and then I went on to say, "MAY BE". If I were claiming to have the truth in this matter, I would have said, "what the actual truth IS". However, when one says, "may be", they are saying, "no matter what the truth would be".