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!

[Realworldjack]

[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.

Once again, you all continue to make my point for me.

How in the world can one have a "fear of hell" until they are convinced something may be in fact true? How in the world can someone be convinced of something, without the use of the mind?

Since we are talking about Christianity, how can one have a "fear of hell" described in the Bible, if you are not even sure there would be any sort of evidence to support the Christian claims? This makes no sense to me?

The "fear of hell" had nothing whatsoever to do with myself coming to the conviction that there is indeed very strong evidence to support the claims. The main reason for this would be, I had no idea at the time whether Christianity would be true, or not. So then, why would I fear something, that I have not even determined at the time, if there would be any reason at all to believe it?

Once I became convinced Christianity was true, why would I need to have a, "fear of hell?" Again, this makes no sense?

So then, I am fine with those who are convinced Christianity is false, who have no, "fear of hell" because there is no reason to them, to have such a fear. The question is, why would the "fear of hell" be motivation for Christians to believe? Unless of course, they do not use the mind, or they do not use it properly?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 51 by rikuoamero]

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

Oh no! Nothing like that at all. Rather, I would like to stick with the original point I was making, and not get so distracted from it.

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.

And again one who makes my point! How in the world would this have anything to do with whether there may be good reasons to believe Christianity may in fact be true?

Your dad, may have given you good reasons to believe he was a good dad, and he may in fact have been a good dad at one time. However, this would not mean that things could not change.

One of the things that could change is, your dad decided that he may have become interested in things that were more important to him, than being a great dad, and therefore he could have been a great dad at one time, but later he was not.

Next, it could be that your dad was a great dad all along, but your perception of what a great dad would be, did not line up with, what he thought a great dad would be, and I have had this same idea about my dad at times when I was a teen.

But the fact of the matter would be, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with, Christianity.

Because you see, the facts concerning Christianity being true, or false, not only have not changed, they cannot change, as opposed to your dad, who could change.

Do you see what I mean? You are comparing things that cannot even be compared. Your dad could be a good dad one day, and a bad dad the next. However, the facts that support Christianity, have not changed, because they cannot change.

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

Nor do I, but I was scolded by "Jagella" at one point who insisted that, "it was not that he did not use his mind to come to faith, but rather that he did not use the mind properly." So you will have to talk to him about that. However, if things continue as they have been, then it is quite likely that now that you know where it came from, you may want to agree with him.

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.

Oh really? So, would this be a case of, "changing one's mind?" Because, I can demonstrate where you were in agreement with me at one point.

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.

You are correct here. However, there can be no doubt that he is using the things he describes as some sort of verification for what he believes, just like Christians do, and as you have testified this is not wise no matter what the intent.

So then, why don't we simply agree, (because we already have) that no matter the intent, (and at this point the author has responded, and still has not told us his intent in the OP) that it was not a very wise thing to bring forth, since it would be the same way many Christians think.

Because you see, if his intent was as you have suggested, then it would have been very easy, and wise at the end to go on to explain that, "I truly did experience all of these feelings above when I rejected Christianity. Now, are there any Christians out there who believe this type of argument would be legitimate, and that my feelings would be any sort of verification? If you do not believe this argument is legit, then what causes Christians to use feelings as any sort of verification?"

If this would have been done, we would not be having this conversation, and it would have been a fantastic point, and I would have happily agreed with him. However, I can only take the OP at face value.

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

No, it was only the last point that you did not agree with, but I have been corrected, and agree with you that these things may not have been what actually lead him to the decision, but they certainly are a factor, or there would be no need to mention them, because I will assure you that I would never mention these sort of things, because I understand they have nothing whatsoever to do with it on either side.

Being a former Christian-cum-atheist, I perhaps have a better insight into Jagella's thinking process than you do

I am very familiar with this type of thinking because I have been exposed to it in many a Church, which is one of the reasons, (but certainly not the only reason) I have not attended Church in years.

So then, as you can see, I have plenty of insight into this type of thinking, and I am on record as rejecting this type of thinking on both sides.

(if I remember correctly, you say you're a former unbeliever-cum-Christian?)

I am afraid you are not remembering correctly.

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

Not if he did what I described above, because as I said, "If this would have been done, we would not be having this conversation, and it would have been a fantastic point, and I would have happily agreed with him."

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

Listen, I will gladly accept it if the author would kindly explain to us that his intent is as you say. Because in the end, only he knows what his thinking was at the time of writing.

If the intent is as you say, then all is well, and I would agree. If it was not......... well that is something one would have to wrestle through in their own mind.