Barriers to belief

-Removed-

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.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
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.

[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.

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.

-Removed-

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.

-Removed-

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 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.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
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.

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.

-Removed-

He's already said so. He was explicit.

-Removed-

I don't see that there's any mystery over their motives at all.

Originally posted by FMF
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.

I 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?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
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.

I believed that it was divinely inspired and therefore true and therefore compelling.