Christian vs. Ex-Christian

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian vs. Ex-Christian

Apologists often seem unaware that most of their debate opponents here were formerly Christians, some for decades, and are likely to be quite familiar with the teachings and beliefs of Christianity – as well as its weaknesses or defects.

Of course, a typical response by Christians to those who leave Christianity is to demean the person’s former sincerity of belief. However, before accusing anyone of not having been a real / true / committed Christian:

1. Specify who authorized and empowered you to make such judgments.

2. Look up the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

3. Be aware that Forum rule #15 specifically prohibits saying who is or is not a Christian (and presumably including who was or was not).

4. Notice that trying to demean someone’s previous commitment to Christianity sounds like a desperation effort.


Consider that if and when you leave Christianity what you know about its dogma, rituals and literature will not suddenly disappear – and you could become a very effective debater against your former position. Of course, you are firmly convinced that you will never leave (and you may not); however, the apostates very likely were just as convinced once as you are now.

[Overcomer]

Zzyzx wrote:

Specify who authorized and empowered you to make such judgments.

Be aware that Forum rule #15 specifically prohibits saying who is or is not a Christian (and presumably including who was or was not).

I'm taking these two points together because I think they're linked. Look at it this way: Every organization, religious, political, social or whatever, has certain criteria that identify its members. Here in Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party (NDP) have different views, beliefs and policies that make them different from each other. If you don't line up with the views, beliefs and policies of the Conservatives, you aren't a Conservative. With regard to religion, there are beliefs that make a Hindu different from a Christian and different from a Muslim, etc. If you don't line up with what makes a Muslim a Muslim, you're not a Muslim.

So why do we think that Christianity is any different? Christian orthodoxy has remained the same with regard to its primary doctrines (deity of Christ, the Trinity, Incarnation of Christ, Virgin birth, death and resurrection to atone for humankind, his ascension to heaven where he sits at the right hand of God and the return of Christ at some unknown point) since the first century. There have been people who have questioned those doctrines down through history (such as Arius and Apollinarius, for example) which has demanded that the Church define those doctrines explicitly over the centuries, but they haven't changed the basic beliefs of Christians.

Therefore, it seems ludicrous to me that we must not have a definition of what it means to be a Christian on this web site. Why is that? To appease those who don't like the definition? To appease those who have changed the definition of Christianity to suit themselves and want to wear the label? To be politically correct and not offend anybody?

The Church and its members have the authority and power to make such judgments just as the Progressive Conservative Party has the authority and power to make judgments about who upholds its tenets and who belongs to it. There have been people who challenged it, too, and have left to form their own parties (such as Preston Manning and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, for example)). This has happened with Christianity (Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, for example). Just as the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance didn't pretend to be Progressive Conservatives, those who have abandoned orthodox Christianity shouldn't pretend to be Christians.

Zzyzx wrote:

Look up the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply here. Look at it this way: I can say that a person isn't a true Scotsman because he doesn't eat haggis and he doesn't wear a kilt. That would be a fallacious argument. Why? Because the definition of a Scotsman doesn't include eating haggis and wearing kilts. A Scotsman is defined as a native or inhabitant of Scotland. I can only rightly say that someone is NOT a Scotsman if he isn't either of those things. If he's a born Russian or a Russian citizen living in Moscow, he's not a Scotsman even if he does eat haggis and wear a kilt.

The same is true of Christianity. Since the first century, it has been the case that a person is a Christian if he has been born-again (dead Spirit brought alive in Christ) and is in a relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Spirit and, as such, believes the primary doctrines of Christianity as I outlined above. It involves both a head and a heart knowledge of Christ. Therefore, if someone does NOT meet that criteria, they are not Christians. And saying that someone isn't a Christian based on the true and right definition of what it means to be one is NOT a fallacy like that of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It would only be a fallacy if I said that someone isn't a true Christian because he doesn't kneel when he prays, for example, as that is not part of the definition of being a Christian.

Zzyzx wrote:

Notice that trying to demean someone’s previous commitment to Christianity sounds like a desperation effort.

It is necessary to point out what the definition of a Christian has been for the last 2,000 years. It is a point of reference and isn't meant to demean anybody. Could we have a discussion of differing religions or differing political parties or differing social groups without defining what their beliefs are and what it means to wear the label of Christian, Hindu, Democrat, Republican, Communist, neo-Nazi, anarchist, Free Mason or whatever? Can we not question whether one really is a Christian, Hindu, Democrat, Communist, Free Mason, etc. based on the definition of what it means to be each of those?

I'm not questioning someone's active and even devoted participation in a church, a Bible study or the choir. But here's the thing: What makes Christianity different from every other religion out there centers on being born-again spiritually (from which you cannot be "unborn" any more than you can be "unborn" physically) and being in a relationship with the Lord by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. You will not find either of those things in any other religion. That's what makes the criteria for Christianity different than that of any other religion or political party or social group. Yes, it involves beliefs and tenets, but they are grounded in the fact of being born again and filled with the Holy Spirit in a relationship. And there are people who sit in pews today and who have sat in pews in the past and will sit in pews in the future NOT born again and NOT Spirit-filled and NOT in a relationship with Jesus. They may be faithful to attend church. They may lead a Bible study. They may even stand in the pulpit and preach sermons, but those activities and the amount of time and energy they spend at them do not make them a Christian. They are Christians in name only, not in fact.

Look at it this way:

You can sit in a chicken coop and cluck and eat chicken feed, but that doesn't make you a chicken.

You can sit in a church and sing the hymns and read the Bible, but that doesn't make you a Christian.

So, in conclusion, it is imperative to define what it means to be a Christian and to define it rightly. If we don't do that, how can we even begin to possibly talk about it intelligently and legitimately?

And just so you know -- I am returning to school next week so my visits here may be few and far between for the next while.

[Bust Nak]

And saying that someone isn't a Christian based on the true and right definition of what it means to be one is NOT a fallacy like that of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It would only be a fallacy if I said that someone isn't a true Christian because he doesn't kneel when he prays, for example, as that is not part of the definition of being a Christian.

But that's exactly the problem here. Christians are somewhat arbitrary saying another Christian is not Christian despite them fitting the true and right definition of what it means to be a Christian. I say "somewhat arbitrary" here because these people are still appealing to their custom definition of Christian that is at a glance, justified by their theology; take your insistence on being born again and spirit-filled for example, isn't that much better than the requirement of kneeling when one prays.

...They may even stand in the pulpit and preach sermons, but those activities and the amount of time and energy they spend at them do not make them a Christian.

But believing in Jesus as the son of God, that he died and was resurrected for the salvation of man does make them Christian. How are you not guilty of the no true Scotsman fallacy here by calling them Christian in name only?

[William]

William: I would argue that simply because of #3;

Zzyzx: 3. Be aware that Forum rule #15 specifically prohibits saying who is or is not a Christian (and presumably including who was or was not).

William: Christians who claim their particular branch is the 'true' branch are breaking the rule.
In that, they could be warned, and if it continues, could be put on probation and fined.

Generally, they are allowed to continue making such claims. Perhaps because the Message board would quickly run out of a lot of Christian participants?

As to the other points, perhaps this is what Jung referred to as 'projection'?

My own journey with Christianity has tended toward understanding that the branches are not the tree and the tree is not the source of its own nutrients.
This frees me up to explore ideas outside the suppressive nature of the branches... and the tree...

I wonder if many atheists who were former Christians realized this or just assumed that their particular branch had let them down, and in examining other branches, identified similar things. Perhaps the belief that 'the Church' and its handbook was the medium between the individual and GOD was the deciding factor as it proved to fail them?

When I read how let down former Christians feel about the whole ordeal, while I can certainly empathize, I chose not to let that determine, for me, the need to follow suit and adopt a GOD-less outcome.

It cannot be denied that the former Christians have really tried hard to get me to be GOD-less (believe in the non-existence of the Metaphysical Universe), but I have never seen any argument which has convinced me that is the best position for a Human Being to adopt, and often their argument is emotionally-based, which is never the best position to be making decisions from anyway.

Also, in trying to determine differences in positions, I have found it useful to look at similarities in attitudes expressed, and from that I can determine that Christians/Theists who are judgmental, are no different to non-theists/ex-Christians who are judgmental, so perhaps it is safe to include the possibility that those anti-theists were judgmental in their former years as Christians, and so all that has changed is that they do not use the idea of GOD in order to make their judgments against others, which - to me - is much the same - no radically significant difference really.