I love how extremists and fundamentalists label everything they don't agree with as liberal.
I love how liberals always adopt what I do not agree with. A counter claim does nothing to pardon the first claim even if it was true. I used to have homosexuality supporters (liberals mostly) suggest that murder was worse. I said I am not for murder either and that does not make abortion right even if more wrong. So even if I did characterize everyone I disagree with a liberal (and I cannot see the advantage in doing so) that would not change the correctness of my original claim.
You started it.
"We vs them". It's also called group-think. Categorical attitudes are quite common in fundamentalism.
So classifying right as right an d wrong as wrong is distasteful and illegitimate. No wonder virtually every moral statistic has plummeted since the secular revolution in the US in about 1960 and why this immoral plunge is called "progress"
I believe the truth being different than that, and as such, I don't think I belong to either one of your groups.
I was not discussing what our beliefs were, I was discussing what the bible claims. I am talking about the equivalent of what is true of gravity regardless of whether you agree with it. It is what is true of a concept. If the bible is true then you would be in a category regardless of whether you think the category exists or not. However it was only meant as context. If you were in the dark you would most likely not be able to see well enough to realize it.
I also have spent decades on both sides, actually on many different sides, not just two.
So you are claiming that you have been a born again Christian. To have experienced God then concluded at some point later you do not believe in God. I doubt this, but in biblical contexts that is what you must mean. This is like saying you were sick, took some medicine, got well and then later determined medicine does not exist and the entire medical field is full of it. I have spend thousands of hours in debate and listening to debate (formal and informal) you are one of two people I have heard claim that is if that is what you do claim. The other is Schumer of skeptic magazine which I like very much) but the claim is still irrational. I imagine rather you are interpreting differing levels of doubt as faith or non-faith. That is at least rational whether right or wrong. It is very much like a person asking another one if they have ever been in love. If you have you know it, if you have not (and in this case would like to think you were) you will interpret less doubt as faith. Again this is not a moral or intellectual distinction, it is one or access. The hardest person to convince of their irrationality (analogy to a lack of saving faith) are the most irrational. The most wrong (potentially) are the least able to know. Just for kicks do you know where the most self assured persons are held, insane asylums. They do not believe that Christ existed they KNOW for a fact they are Christ.
Let me summarize very briefly the experience of every born again Christian I know. I have been asked to write several papers on it so know in general what is common. You can get in the proximity of faith by diligent effort (historical, philosophical, personal introspection in general). However the last infinite foot hat separates our ability to know and God is all God's doing. I went from not having any good reason to doubt Christ to being cognizant of his reality and historical role as a certainty by supernatural means. I know it unlike I perceive anything else I have ever adopted as true. I have no way to explain that certainty but it is not of my own effort. I also have never known personally anyone born again who later disbelieved. I am sure it has occurred but I am also sure it is so rare that among the hundreds I know of it never has. Doubt of course a resignation of what was revealed never in my experience, it almost seems the supernatural component of born again faith compensates for whatever natural doubt exists dynamically.
I have to get out of here. So whatever side your own have a good one. A heart (kingdom) divided against it's self cannot stand was true long before Lincoln existed. Or as the great sage "rush" said there is no hero in neutrality or if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.