Loss of Faith--What's there to lose?

[Jagella]

Question for Debate: What would Christians lose if they lost their faith?

Needless to say, people do what they do for some kind of advantage they think it offers. If that effort is not applied, then a real or imagined advantage is feared to be lost. Christian faith is like that: believers see some advantage in maintaining Christian faith, and that's why they maintain their faith believing and acting in accord with their faith.

So what is there to lose by losing Christian faith? There are no doubt many answers to this question, but salvation might top the list. Christians see their salvation as an ultimate hope that offers them eternal life in paradise and assurance that they will never be damned. To lose faith is to lose salvation and to risk eternity in hell.

Other reasons to maintain Christian faith is to keep a familiar view of the world, to have a basis for morality, to have friends who believe as the Christian does, and to have a sense of purpose.

I can assure everybody, however, that loss of Christian faith is to lose what you don't really want. My losing my Christian faith is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to me. I felt a great sense of freedom in both thought and in deed when I lost my faith, and I still do. I now have hope that I can live this one true and real life the best way I can. I now have a view of the world that sensible and honest people have discovered through hard work and solid evidence. It truly is a tremendous gain to lose Christian faith!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 49 by Realworldjack]

There is really no need in continuing this back, and forth, because we are getting way off track here. So then let us deal with the facts we have in hand, which is my original point.

If you want to end it, that's fine by me. Not like I can force you to continue.

It is a fact that there are numerous members of this site who freely, and readily admit to embracing Christianity, with all their heart, for years as an adult.

Yes there are. No disagreement here.

These very same folk now claim to not only reject the faith, but also that there would be no real good reasons to believe what they once freely admitted that they once were truly convinced of.

Yes. Basically "Don't believe me simply because I said it". In fact, this is exactly what happened to me and my friends. My friends were unfamiliar with my biological father when I was growing up. I told them he was a great dad, a great man, loving, kind etc, and because I am their friend and I said it, they believed me.
Fast forward several years, and I learned the opposite. I was the one telling them something, and I was wrong.

Some of these folks will say "they did not use the mind when coming to the faith", and there is at least one who claims to reject that idea, but rather claims they, "did not use the mind properly when coming to faith."

I'm not seeing much of a difference between not using the mind and not using the mind properly.

With all these things being fact, we now have an OP which seems to clearly demonstrate, that the thinking that lead one to faith, is in no way any different than the thinking that lead them to reject the faith.

Actually...I've just gone and re-read the OP. I went back through it with a fine tooth comb...and nowhere in it do I see this. I even read it out loud to myself just to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
At no-point in the OP does Jagella say what "lead him to reject the faith". He talks about afterwards sure, in similar language to what one might hear from a preacher (talk about hope and how wonderful it is), but he doesn't explain what led him to reject it.

I bring these facts forward, and you actually agree with me, because you cannot avoid these facts

These facts as you write them here, I do not agree with, at least not the last point.

and you give us the explanation that it may have been the intent of the author.

Being a former Christian-cum-atheist, I perhaps have a better insight into Jagella's thinking process than you do (if I remember correctly, you say you're a former unbeliever-cum-Christian?)

However, you go on to admit that it was not wise, and you would not do the same.

Exactly. I have my own ideas. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have talked about extra-marital sex.

The problem with your idea, is that it has not been verified, and cannot be verified, even if the author now claims you are correct, because we would all be left with simply having to take his word for it.

What if Jagella explained my idea, before I had actually posited it? We'd still be left taking his word for it either way.

Moreover, the author has had every opportunity to give us an answer, but as of yet has failed to do so, and the silence speaks just as good as words in my ears.

I'm not particularly bothered by that. If Jag wants to give his reason or not to, that's up to him.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 43 by mrhagerty]

Paul wasn't wrong because he wasn't referring to being miserable right now. He was referring to what tam and I said about expectations lost that one was looking forward to.

Are you presuming to think I'm miserable about losing the prospect or expectation of eternal life with Jesus Christ that I once had?

You're wrong. I'm not miserable over that.

Oblivion is a miserable alternative to what Paul would be expecting.

In your opinion. I hold the opposite view. I would (now) prefer oblivion to spending eternity with Paul's buddy Jesus and his daddy.

You won't see that, of course, because life seems OK for you. (Just don't get bone cancer or leukemia. That might change your outlook in a hurry.)

I've got health problems, thank you very much. There have also been tragedies and controversies in the family, thank you very much. I'm happy with my life regardless. I look for the silver lining.

But from a Jewish perspective, Paul would be facing a judgment based on works (the very thing you and Jagella boast about), which won't end well for anyone.

And what is that judgement going to be...?

Christ freed Paul from that worry.

Much like I tell modern feminists, feeling worry over a thing doesn't change the reality of the thing. They say to me "You're a white male, you can walk down the alley alone at night not feeling afraid of anything, you've got white male privilege", to which I retort "I don't walk down the alley alone at night. I'm a short fat man, with health problems. My worry or lack of it, doesn't change whether or not I get mugged or beaten or shot or stabbed".

Paul may indeed have felt free from worry, but lack of worry about a thing doesn't change the reality of that thing (if it indeed even is a reality at all).

Being wrong about Christ would have been misery for him and anyone who believed as he did.

So there's an emotional attachment to the belief.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 46 by mrhagerty]

Oh I don't have to be tacit about it. There are paltry extra-biblical references to Christ. That was never supposed to be the way folks are to be convinced.

So you admit there are few such references, but only that, say it's on purpose?
Wow!
I'm the King of Jupiter. Of course, outside of this thread, there's paltry references to that, but that was always the way folks are to be convinced.

It's only important to folks who must have anything but the Bible. But I guarantee you you would tar and feather those references if they proclaimed Jesus as Son of God and spoke about sin the same as the Bible.

Not only do I find the concept of sin reprehensible, but also because there's no evidence to back it up. Which you've just admitted.

So what you're really asking is, "How about some extra-biblical references that get rid of all the controversial things I hate about the Bible."

Nope, try again.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 52 by rikuoamero"

Are you presuming to think I'm miserable about losing the prospect or expectation of eternal life with Jesus Christ that I once had?

You keep making this about you as if your assessment of things in your atheistic life is a check on whether Paul was right or mistaken.

Paul's comment uses "we" which does not include YOU by any stretch. He includes all believers in those who will be most miserable.

The fact that unbelievers don't experience any angst over this loss doesn't prove to anyone that they have a grasp on the real state of affairs or that they've proven such things false for Paul and other believers.

In your opinion. I hold the opposite view. I would (now) prefer oblivion to spending eternity with Paul's buddy Jesus and his daddy.

Oblivion was only a hypothetical. If it turns out not to be, then what?

And what is that judgement going to be...?

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

Death and Destruction lie open before the LORD— how much more do human hearts! - Proverbs 15:11

Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. Psalm 1:5

Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. Psalms 21:9

Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 5:24

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. Isaiah 66:24

You did ask.

[Deleted]

"Replying to Post 53 by rikuoamero"

I'm the King of Jupiter. Of course, outside of this thread, there's paltry references to that, but that was always the way folks are to be convinced.

Since you don't promise a gift to individuals that will prove this claim true, you're not offering a parallel case. You fit StuartJ's case perfectly. You really DO have nothing to offer.

Not only do I find the concept of sin reprehensible, but also because there's no evidence to back it up. Which you've just admitted.

Because you've jiggered the game, rikuoamero.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 50 by Jagella]

Even if we granted everything you say in this post, so what?

Can I take this to mean that you see nothing wrong with this type of thinking? Or, will you opt for claiming this was your intent the way in which "rikuoamero" is suggesting? Because I see a lot of problems with that option, but I have not addressed them as of yet, since you have not told us what your intent truly was, and since you did not share this with us, I took the OP at face value.

All you would have accomplished is to demonstrate that people sometimes err.

No, my friend, this is not what we have demonstrated at all. We cannot even demonstrate that you, "did not use the mind properly for years to continue to embrace the faith", because all we can do is to take your word for it.

However, I want you to know, that I have no problem at all with taking your word for it, because I know for a fact that there are many, many Christians who did not, and do not use the mind to come to faith. So then, this is not shocking at all. The only thing shocking, and amazing to me is, that folks would actually make such decisions, without the mind?

We also have not demonstrated that you were in error, when you believed Christianity to be true. Rather, all we know is that you now claimed to have changed your mind, but changing one's mind does not in any way guarantee, that what one once believed is false, and what they now believe must be true.

In other words, whether you acknowledged it at the time or not, when you were a Christian, you could in no way demonstrate what you believed concerning Christianity. Now that you have changed your mind, whether you acknowledge it or not, you can in no way demonstrate that what you now believe about Christianity would be correct.

You see, all you can do is to tell us, what you use to believe, as opposed to what you believe now, but neither demonstrates anything at all, other than what you claim to believe. This is not an error.

So allow me to explain to you what has been demonstrated.

It has been demonstrated that there are a good number of folks who freely, and readily admit that they made a decision to become a Christian, without the use of the mind or, "the mind was not used properly."

Next, we have demonstrated that the thinking used in the OP in defense of rejecting the faith, would be absolutely no different than the defense many Christians use, that is so criticized, (and rightly so) by myself, and unbelievers.

And if adopting a faith turns out to be an error

But we have not "determined" you would have been in error. Rather, all that has been determined is, it would be an error not to use the mind to make such a major decision. Can you see the difference?

then dropping that faith constitutes error correction.

No, because as we have already established, you cannot in any way demonstrate how you would have been in error to believe Christianity to be true. All we can say is, it would be an error to ignore the mind, or not use the mind properly to make such a decision.

Allow me to reword your statement in order for it to reflect what would in fact be true, so that maybe you can see the difference.

If adopting a faith turns out to be a matter of not using the mind properly, then dropping that faith would not in any way necessitate that what one use to believe would be false. Rather, it would only establish the fact that one has changed their mind.

You see, my statement would be a fact, while yours is simply an opinion. Let me try it again.

If adopting a faith turns out to be a matter of not using the mind properly, then dropping that faith, would not in any way necessitate that the mind is now being used properly.

Again, both of my statements would be fact, while yours would be an opinion.

So then, your "dropping of the faith" does not "constitute error correction" in the least. It only "constitutes" a change of mind.

An excellent example of this would be, Rosaria Butterfield. Miss Butterfield was a professor of English at Syracuse, on top of the fact that she was a lesbian, who not only was not a believer, but was also afraid of Christians, and more importantly their ideas.

To make a long story short, Miss Butterfield is now a Christian, and I will assure you that she cannot be accused of, not using the mind, or not using it properly.

At any rate, she has now changed her mind. So then, would you accept her saying, "if rejecting a faith turns out to be an error, then embracing that faith constitutes error correction?"

Of course you would not!! Rather, you would argue that, her statement would not amount to anything at all, and you would be correct. With this being the case, why would you suppose your statement would hold any water?

I believe we have established here, that while some folks may have the ability to change the mind, does not mean they have the ability to change the way they think. Because you see, simply because one can change the mind, does not in any way necessitate that what they have changed their mind to, would be correct, nor would it demonstrate in any way that they are now, "using the mind properly."

The fact of the matter would be, if your statement is correct which was again,

if adopting a faith turns out to be an error, then dropping that faith constitutes error correction.

Then the same would hold for Miss Butterfield as well, along with many others who claimed to be opposed to Christianity, who are now Christians.

If this is not the case, then can you explain why it applies to you, but would not apply to those who once opposed Christianity, but are now believers?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 56 by Realworldjack]

You see, all you can do is to tell us, what you use to believe, as opposed to what you believe now, but neither demonstrates anything at all, other than what you claim to believe. This is not an error.

I used to believe that Jesus was the "Son of God" and that he died on the cross for my sins, and a whole bunch of other planet-flooding, virgin-birthing, resurrecting, water-walking things.

Such beliefs are an error ...

Because the Christian version of "God" is not God with a capital-G.

The claim the Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Ghost combo-deal is "God" is a false claim.

(I have started at least one thread on this topic and the best anyone can do is say that the Indwelling Holy Spirit/Voices In the Head (IHS/VIH) TELLS them it's true.

Please add to the topic/s.)

I saw the error or my ancestral delusions ...

And tossed them in the bin with all the other erroneous, delusional beliefs that humans dream up.

Because the Christian version of "God" is not God ...

All the rest of the beliefs crumble on the feet of clay ...

And they too are just plain wrong ...

Or ...

Errors.

Today I do not have beliefs ...

I have accondances ...

And leave beliefs firmly in Bible class.

[rikuoamero]

"Replying to Post 53 by rikuoamero"

I'm the King of Jupiter. Of course, outside of this thread, there's paltry references to that, but that was always the way folks are to be convinced.

Since you don't promise a gift to individuals that will prove this claim true, you're not offering a parallel case. You fit StuartJ's case perfectly. You really DO have nothing to offer.

Not only do I find the concept of sin reprehensible, but also because there's no evidence to back it up. Which you've just admitted.

Because you've jiggered the game, rikuoamero.

Oh...I hve to promise something to individuals? I have to offer a honeypot? Do I also have to threaten them?
Very well. For those who believe I am the King of Jupiter, I offer eternal life as princes of the universe, under my authority.
Those who don't believe me, who are unbelievers, will be sent to live in Jupiter but be crushed by its enormous pressure.

Also...I've rigged the game? What is it Christianity says about humans, how they are born? There's a special two words for it, what were they again? They kind of slip my mind, care to help a fellow out?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 54 by mrhagerty]

I was a believer at some point. I then thought about things, and over time, slowly became an unbeliever.
Are you arguing that the emotional distress only applies to those who remain vervent in the belief?

It was only a handful of years ago (thanks to this forum I might add) that I actually lost entirely my fear of a hell.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 56 by Realworldjack]

You see, all you can do is to tell us, what you use to believe, as opposed to what you believe now, but neither demonstrates anything at all, other than what you claim to believe. This is not an error.

I used to believe that Jesus was the "Son of God" and that he died on the cross for my sins, and a whole bunch of other planet-flooding, virgin-birthing, resurrecting, water-walking things.

Such beliefs are an error ...

Because the Christian version of "God" is not God with a capital-G.

The claim the Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Ghost combo-deal is "God" is a false claim.

(I have started at least one thread on this topic and the best anyone can do is say that the Indwelling Holy Spirit/Voices In the Head (IHS/VIH) TELLS them it's true.

Please add to the topic/s.)

I saw the error or my ancestral delusions ...

And tossed them in the bin with all the other erroneous, delusional beliefs that humans dream up.

Because the Christian version of "God" is not God ...

All the rest of the beliefs crumble on the feet of clay ...

And they too are just plain wrong ...

Or ...

Errors.

Today I do not have beliefs ...

I have accondances ...

And leave beliefs firmly in Bible class.

And again, you all continue to make my point, which is, "simply because one has the ability to change the mind, doses not in any way necessitate that they have the ability to change the way they think."

Just look at the example above. There are many Christians who suppose that if they simply believe something very strongly, then it must, and has to be true, no matter the evidence. So then, what is the difference in the way many Christians think, and what is said in this post? I can see nothing in the least.

There are dogmatic statements made above as if they were fact, without the slightest bit of evidence to back them up, accept for, "I used to believe, but now I believe" just like many, many Christians do, as if this would have some sort of bearing upon what the truth actually may be, when the only truth we have is, this person may have changed their mind.

I will assume the author of this post was at one time a Christian. I will also assume that they would admit to becoming a Christian, without the use of the mind, or they did not use the mind properly when making the decision to become a Christian.

If I am correct, can someone please demonstrate how the thinking has changed, as opposed to the mind simply being changed?

(I have started at least one thread on this topic and the best anyone can do is say that the Indwelling Holy Spirit/Voices In the Head (IHS/VIH) TELLS them it's true.

Please add to the topic/s.)

I will add to this topic right here. You have never heard me say such a thing, because you have never heard me claim that "Christianity must be true."

Now the question would be, is this the sort of evidence you use to determine in your mind Christianity must be false, simply because there are Christians who say such things?

Let's think about this? If you were a Christian who did not use the mind to make such a decision, and you also know there would be many others here on this site who would admit the same thing, then would this not tell you that there more than likely would be many Christians still today, who came to faith in the same way that you did? That is to say that there would be Christians today, who do not use the mind concerning what they believe?

If so, then would this not tell you that you may be conversing with Christians just like you were? So then, how does determining that many Christians do not use the mind, confirm that Christianity must be false?