Spirituality
16 Nov 16
27 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterI would basically like to know what evidence used to convince him about the legitimacy of his beliefs in the past and what has changed about that particular evidence that it is not longer convincing.
I'm curious.
Succinctly, what is it you want to know?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121646
27 Nov 16
2 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut can you form that into a properly constructed question which we can discuss even if FMF doesnt.
I would basically like to know what evidence used to convince him about the legitimacy of his beliefs in the past and what has changed about that particular evidence that it is not longer convincing.
I would advise you to avoid "evidence" as we have already debated this and we are not agreed on the meaning of what is evidence or indeed if evidence actually exists.
The facts are these:
- FMF believes he was once a Christian and he is being genuine and honest about this.
- FMF stoped believing he was a Christian and he is also being genuine and honest about this
- The reason he gives is that the things he believed about Christianity which he thought were true, the tenets of the faith etc, he gradually came to a personal realisation that for him they no longer were true.
**FMF please correct me if I'm wrong there.
I think you need to look at these facts and decide what it is you either don't understand or don't believe or are uncomfortable with, and ask your "killer" question accordingly.
This way we (those following) may at least discuss your question and maybe FMF will oblige you with a deeper response.
27 Nov 16
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk[1] The content of the Bible seemed to me support the claims that Christians make etc. etc., and [2] I lost my faith in it; what has changed about the "evidence" ~ after lengthy contemplation and reflection - on its origin, on its authorship, on its purpose, on its cultural context, on its reliance on circular logic etc. - I realized it no longer convinced me and that I no longer believed the claims that Christians make etc. etc. I have told you all this over and over and over again.
I would basically like to know [1] what evidence used to convince him about the legitimacy of his beliefs in the past and [2] what has changed about that particular evidence that it is not longer convincing.
Now, as you know, I am not the slightest bit interested in dissecting stuff I no longer believe. I have done so extensively in the past. I am not going to do so at your behest. I take you at your word when you claim to be a Christian. If you don't want to take my word for it that I used to be one, then so be it.
27 Nov 16
Originally posted by divegeesterIf the world 'evidence' needs to be avoided, then I am merely interested in what FMF found to be compelling about Christianity, i.e what exactly convinced him initially that Christianity was the truth. Assuming of course that he was the type of Christian that actually believed Christianity was true.
But can you form that into a properly constructed question which we can discuss even if FMF doesnt.
I would advise you to avoid "evidence" as we have already debated this and we are not agreed on the meaning of what is evidence or indeed if evidence actually exists.
The facts are these:
- FMF believes he was once a Christian and he is being genu ...[text shortened]... lowing) may at least discuss your question and maybe FMF will oblige you with a deeper response.
27 Nov 16
Originally posted by divegeesterYou apparently don't get it either. It's understandable perhaps, because you and I have of course spent hours discussing Christianity and my loss of faith. I have also written about it here in the past.
This way we (those following) may at least discuss your question and maybe FMF will oblige you with a deeper response.
But I have told Fetchmyjunk exactly why I am not interested in his analysis. I believe that him ignoring what I say to him and pressing and pressing with the same questions over and over again is part of his piss-taking routine - something you have also commented on - so you are not going to stage manage any situation where I sit down and type a load of stuff out that I am not interested in typing out.
I am here as a non-Christian. If I wanted a post-mortem on my former Christian beliefs I would go to a Christian message board and interact with Christians there.
27 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe contents of the Bible ~ the narrative about Jesus. I thought it was compelling. I believed it was authentic. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing over and over again. I have told you this repeatedly.
I am merely interested in what FMF found to be compelling about Christianity, i.e what exactly convinced him initially that Christianity was the truth.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121646
27 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI do get it, and I get it completely. I am not trying stage-manage anything nor put you in a position where you feel obliged to discuss something you don't want to discuss. What I am doing is examining the methods and indeed the motives of Fetchmyjunk's approach to debate and in particular this topic.
You apparently don't get it either. It's understandable perhaps, because you and I have of course spent hours discussing Christianity and my loss of faith. I have also written about it here in the past.
But I have told Fetchmyjunk exactly why I am not interested in his analysis. I believe that him ignoring what I say to him and pressing and pressing with the ...[text shortened]... er Christian beliefs I would go to a Christian message board and interact with Christians there.
That you and I have spent much time discussing your loss of faith is debatable itself; as I've said, it's your business and if you want to disuss it you will. There are presumably millions who like you have over time, come to a different perspective in their spirituality, I don't think you are in any way unique nor unusual within that sub-set nor unbelievable in any way, which is why I never question you on it and why I find it curious that others here do. It's their motives that interests me not yours.
27 Nov 16
Originally posted by divegeesterI don't see that there's any mystery over their motives at all.
I don't think you are in any way unique nor unusual within that sub-set nor unbelievable in any way, which is why I never question you on it and why I find it curious that others here do. It's their motives that interests me not yours.
27 Nov 16
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI obviously know you thought it was compelling, I would like to know the reasons why you thought it was compelling and authentic. Surely there are reasons why you find something compelling and authentic?
The contents of the Bible ~ the narrative about Jesus. I thought it was compelling. I believed it was authentic. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing over and over again. I have told you this repeatedly.
27 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI believed that it was divinely inspired and therefore true and therefore compelling.
I obviously know you thought it was compelling, I would like to know the reasons why you thought it was compelling. Surely there are reasons why you find something compelling.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121646
27 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut he has told you this time and time again, even I've seen it on my occasional ventures into your threads. He's just told you again...do you believe him?
If the world 'evidence' needs to be avoided, then I am merely interested in what FMF found to be compelling about Christianity, i.e what exactly convinced him initially that Christianity was the truth. Assuming of course that he was the type of Christian that actually believed Christianity was true.