ex-christian=never christian???

[MoonWater]

I remember having a debate a while back with a Christian who claimed that the simple fact that I was able to leave Christianity at all to follow a different religion means I was never actually a Christian to begin with. He said that if at any point I had ever truly believed in God and Jesus then I never would have been able to stop believing and would still be a Christian to this day.

Now I don't know if this is a commonly held belief among general Christians or not, I doubt it since that was the first time I'd heard the concept. I just wanted to bring the idea up for debate/discussion. What do you think of this idea? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is any merit to it?

I'll post my own thoughts later, I want to see what other people have to say first.

 

[robo]

the simple fact that I was able to leave Christianity at all to follow a different religion means I was never actually a Christian to begin with.

Methinks these people hold that Yahweh knew that you would deconvert and hence did not bother to provide you with special insight/answer your prayers right from birth. They, however, have a very personal and intimate relationship with Yahweh. Possibly Yahweh comes in their dreams and answers their prayers and hence they would never think of deconverting?

 

[nnmartin]

strange one.

I've always believed in God, but have never known exactly which one?

sometimes it has been symbolised for me in a Pagan sense, sometimes as Christian or New Age or just something hard to pin a label on.

does that mean I was never a believer or what??

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well I know where they get it from, a verse in the New testament, but the authenticity of the book it comes from is doubtful.

1 John says those who went out from among us were never of us. Now as said it is doubtful John wrote this epistle.

 

[nnmartin]

there are plenty of other non-canonical books that say all sorts of strange stuff.

hard to make head or tail of it all really!

 

[arthra]

First and Second John are still canonical but maybe disputed by scholars..some of this related to the early Docetists one of the early "heresies" that Christ did not have a human body..

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Second John 1:7

But I think I've heard this expressed by some ... So references to the anti-Christ were used to cast anathemas on the enemies of the then young church and doctrines developed to explain how Christ was physical as well as divine and so on...the formulas of the trinity and resurrection developed early on in the church.

We Baha'is accept Jesus but not in the same way that most orthodox Christians do who believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and so on.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I assume that the position is largely based on the no true Scotsman premise; you were never a 'true' Christian, you might have believed in Jesus as your personal saviour and done your best to abide by the rules of the particular Christian denomination you were part of and the teachings of the bible - but that does not make you a 'true' christian, which would therefore mean you aren't 'truly' saved, had you died during that time, you aren't REALLY a Christian etc...

 

[lunakilo]

I remember having a debate a while back with a Christian who claimed that the simple fact that I was able to leave Christianity at all to follow a different religion means I was never actually a Christian to begin with. He said that if at any point I had ever truly believed in God and Jesus then I never would have been able to stop believing and would still be a Christian to this day.

Now I don't know if this is a commonly held belief among general Christians or not, I doubt it since that was the first time I'd heard the concept. I just wanted to bring the idea up for debate/discussion. What do you think of this idea? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is any merit to it?

I'll post my own thoughts later, I want to see what other people have to say first.

I think I could argue both for and against the statement.

Lets start with for:
If I were to become a follower of a religoin I would first need conviencing that the religion is true.
I don't expect a complete mathematical proof that the religion is true, but I doo expect conviencing evidence which can best be explained by the teachings of that religion. For example a personal experience where I felt I met god would probably do it.

So if you say you were a christian, it must mean that something happened to convience you that christianity is true.
If you just called your self a christian because your parents were christian and they told you you were christian, then you never were a true christian.
If you erer a true christian and truly were convienced that christianity is true, you wouldn't stop being a christian.

And against:
We live and learn.
Things that at one point seemed certain may not seem so when you get older.
It doesn't mean that you didn't believe it in the passed, it just means that you are no longer convienced that it is true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I remember having a debate a while back with a Christian who claimed that the simple fact that I was able to leave Christianity at all to follow a different religion means I was never actually a Christian to begin with. He said that if at any point I had ever truly believed in God and Jesus then I never would have been able to stop believing and would still be a Christian to this day.

Now I don't know if this is a commonly held belief among general Christians or not, I doubt it since that was the first time I'd heard the concept. I just wanted to bring the idea up for debate/discussion. What do you think of this idea? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is any merit to it?

I'll post my own thoughts later, I want to see what other people have to say first.

It's just a no true Scotsman fallacy, really. There are lot of people in the world who can't face even the possibility of their beliefs being wrong, or the notion that somebody who once adhered to their belief structure can see something more personally satisfying elsewhere. It's an entirely self-serving and ignorant perspective.

 

[blackout]

It's the easiest way to explain... problematic... things away.

(without actually having to explain, or understand, anything at all)

 

[nnmartin]

isn't there some similar expression used in the love game.

ie: you let a bird go free, and if it never comes back then it never loved you in the first place.

something like that, ie: when your girlfriend leaves for a period of 'space for herself'

kind of nonsense really

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Calvinist rubbish.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I remember having a debate a while back with a Christian who claimed that the simple fact that I was able to leave Christianity at all to follow a different religion means I was never actually a Christian to begin with. He said that if at any point I had ever truly believed in God and Jesus then I never would have been able to stop believing and would still be a Christian to this day.

Now I don't know if this is a commonly held belief among general Christians or not, I doubt it since that was the first time I'd heard the concept. I just wanted to bring the idea up for debate/discussion. What do you think of this idea? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is any merit to it?

I'll post my own thoughts later, I want to see what other people have to say first.

I had the same thing said to me. The way I look at it though, is that it dosent really matter now. The religion is just something of which I have no plans for returning.

 

[sojourner]

Some people place the responsibility of their faith on God's shoulders (Calvinist, I believe) instead of on their own. If they believe, it's something more powerful (and faithful) than they, themselves could fashion. since it comes from God, they reason, it must be real and cannot go away at a whim.

But faith is relational. It takes two. The spark to faith may be planted by God, but the recipient has to nurture it to make it thrive. A farmer doesn't plant seeds and then ignore them, hoping they'll grow. He has to cultivate, water, tend, prune, dust, etc.

Same with faith, I suspect.

 

[cablescavenger]

I remember having a debate a while back with a Christian who claimed that the simple fact that I was able to leave Christianity at all to follow a different religion means I was never actually a Christian to begin with. He said that if at any point I had ever truly believed in God and Jesus then I never would have been able to stop believing and would still be a Christian to this day.

Now I don't know if this is a commonly held belief among general Christians or not, I doubt it since that was the first time I'd heard the concept. I just wanted to bring the idea up for debate/discussion. What do you think of this idea? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is any merit to it?

I'll post my own thoughts later, I want to see what other people have to say first.

I'd say he made it up on the spot.

 

[blackout]

Some people place the responsibility of their faith on God's shoulders (Calvinist, I believe) instead of on their own. If they believe, it's something more powerful (and faithful) than they, themselves could fashion. since it comes from God, they reason, it must be real and cannot go away at a whim.

But faith is relational. It takes two. The spark to faith may be planted by God, but the recipient has to nurture it to make it thrive. A farmer doesn't plant seeds and then ignore them, hoping they'll grow. He has to cultivate, water, tend, prune, dust, etc.

Same with faith, I suspect.

Because of course the 'recipient' couldn't possibly have been cultivating, watering, tending, pruning, dusting.... etc.... in the proper way.

Sorry. You lose too.

It's the way of the self serving presumption, I suspect.

 

[sojourner]

Because of course the 'recipient' couldn't possibly have been cultivating, watering, tending, pruning, dusting.... etc.... in the proper way.

Sorry. You lose too.

It's the way of the self serving presumption, I suspect.

Apparently, we're made to have faith in God -- made for a relationship, but we're made so that we lack the tools to either seek God out or maintain the relationship.

Huh?

 

[waitasec]

I remember having a debate a while back with a Christian who claimed that the simple fact that I was able to leave Christianity at all to follow a different religion means I was never actually a Christian to begin with. He said that if at any point I had ever truly believed in God and Jesus then I never would have been able to stop believing and would still be a Christian to this day.

Now I don't know if this is a commonly held belief among general Christians or not, I doubt it since that was the first time I'd heard the concept. I just wanted to bring the idea up for debate/discussion. What do you think of this idea? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is any merit to it?

I'll post my own thoughts later, I want to see what other people have to say first.

no insecurity has no merit.
it's a judgment call made by insecure people.

 

[doppelganger]

Apparently, we're made to have faith in God -- made for a relationship, but we're made so that we lack the tools to either seek God out or maintain the relationship.

Huh?

The alternative is idolatry.

 

[blackout]

Apparently, we're made to have faith in God -- made for a relationship, but we're made so that we lack the tools to either seek God out or maintain the relationship.

Huh?

Apparently Christianity in no way owns the God relationship.

And by 'in no way', I mean in no way.