Divorced after 25 happy years

@fmf said
Because of my faith, I believed I had "Christ in" me, just as, because of your faith, you believe you have "Christ in" you. I do NOT deny that you believe you have "Christ in" you. And I do NOT deny I believed I had "Christ in" me back then.

And everyone who believes in His name but is not saved because they don't have Christ in them, because they are not abiding in Christ all think or thought the same as you. There is no difference between them and everyone outside of Christ except they hang Jesus's name around their life without Christ in their lives. That is your profession; you are and always were no different than everyone else, that I believe, but Christ in you is what matters; you can believe in the Spaghetti Monster that would put you in no different place than you believing in Thor.

@kellyjay said
And everyone who believes in His name but is not saved because they don't have Christ in them, because they are not abiding in Christ all think or thought the same as you. There is no difference between them and everyone outside of Christ except they hang Jesus's name around their life without Christ in their lives. That is your profession; you are and always were no differe ...[text shortened]... elieve in the Spaghetti Monster that would put you in no different place than you believing in Thor.

I am well aware of what the tenets of your faith are. KellyJay. But as you yourself said exactly one post ago, "...faith doesn't make a reality; it simply has us taking on what we believe the truth to be".

@divegeester said
I know what the bible generally teaches and I know what FMF thinks on this matter.

What I’m asking you, you personally KellyJay, is how do you know that FMF isn’t “once saved always saved” and has drifted away, backsliden…whatever phrase you wish to use?

Kellyjay?

@divegeester said
Kellyjay?

I'm not sure what you are looking for that hasn't already been said; I didn't think you were serious and still don't. Is it that something has to be said DIRECTLY to you while you butt into two other's conversation so that it registers?

@kellyjay said
I'm not sure what you are looking for that hasn't already been said; I didn't think you were serious and still don't. Is it that something has to be said DIRECTLY to you while you butt into two other's conversation so that it registers?

Correct me if I’m wrong then; your position here is that FMF was never saved? And this is based on what he’s been saying as someone who has fallen away from the faith one way or another.

So…I’m asking you if your position is premature and ignores the principle of “once saved always saved” I.e. surely it is possible that FMF’s stated sincere faith has indeed saved him on that principle and he is now in a backslidden situation?

@divegeester said
Correct me if I’m wrong then; your position here is that FMF was never saved? And this is based on what he’s been saying as someone who has fallen away from the faith one way or another.

So…I’m asking you if your position is premature and ignores the principle of “once saved always saved” I.e. surely it is possible that FMF’s stated sincere faith has indeed saved him on that principle and he is now in a backslidden situation?

What is it to you what I think about FMF? I'm talking to him about this subject; I'm not going to run by you what I think of him; I'll leave that kind of stuff to you. You have a direct question that doesn't evolve; someone else ask it.

@divegeester said
Correct me if I’m wrong then; your position here is that FMF was never saved? And this is based on what he’s been saying as someone who has fallen away from the faith one way or another.

So…I’m asking you if your position is premature and ignores the principle of “once saved always saved” I.e. surely it is possible that FMF’s stated sincere faith has indeed saved him on that principle and he is now in a backslidden situation?

I don't believe in once saved, always saved, so its violation isn't something I'm concerned about; let those who hold to that belief defend it. There are too many warnings in scripture about falling away; granted to how you water down the Bible, that is fine and good, but Biblical Christianity is based on the Bible, not our feelings about it.

@kellyjay said
I asked you before, and I didn't get your response, or it wasn't impressive enough for me to even remember if you did. What do you think evolution proves that you can use it to dismiss God? If I accept it as a fact, the only thing that does is leave us with the question, what is the mechanism that produced all of the drives in all life's processes? What produced the informat ...[text shortened]... informational processes suggest to you, mindlessness, and if so, how do you come to that conclusion?

Says the master of avoiding discussions when they start getting tricky; I take it that's the end of our conversation regarding the sanctity of marriage, then?

I'm not responsible for your comprehension or memory of my posts here, and why should evolution have to 'prove' anything in relation to a non - existent god? All that evolution proves is evolution. That which 'drives' life's processes is instinct, for those animals that have instinct, (a dandelion doesn't have instinct, a badger does have instinct) and in either case the mechanism is genetics; the passing on of genetic information from one generation to the next, so that mummy and daddy badger have a baby badger, that kind of phenotype deal, you know? The copying isn't always exact, chromosomal information has errors in the passing on, which perhaps ironically is the 'driving force' behind evolution, although nothing is consciously driving it.

@indonesia-phil said
Says the master of avoiding discussions when they start getting tricky; I take it that's the end of our conversation regarding the sanctity of marriage, then?

I'm not responsible for your comprehension or memory of my posts here, and why should evolution have to 'prove' anything in relation to a non - existent god? All that evolution proves is evolution. That which ...[text shortened]... haps ironically is the 'driving force' behind evolution, although nothing is consciously driving it.

I responded, and you went silent. Evolution is a process, not something that starts anything, only a theory about an ongoing process, which is all of the genetic code drives. It sets up error checking and keeps copying cells running by the rules required for that to occur, a genetic code. You assume the code just sprang up without anyone writing it. Outside of your blind faith in making that suggestion, I ask you to provide some evidence for a mindless process springing up that can deal with all of the error checkings, feedback loops, and other necessary features in life. YOU HAVE BLIND FAITH in this; nothing anywhere suggests happenstance could produce such things, but we see that functional complexity level arise when my mind directs the transactions.

You don't believe in the sanctity of marriage; that is an opinion; not going to bother with that unless you can come up with something outside your own opinion on the matter.

@kellyjay said
What is it to you what I think about FMF?

Don’t be silly.

This thread is FMF running a divorce analogy about his loss of faith. You are making public assertions about what your perceptions of that and I’m commenting on those assertions.

If you don’t want people commenting on your assertions then I suggest not making them in public.

@kellyjay said
I don't believe in once saved, always saved, so its violation isn't something I'm concerned about; let those who hold to that belief defend it. There are too many warnings in scripture about falling away; granted to how you water down the Bible, that is fine and good, but Biblical Christianity is based on the Bible, not our feelings about it.

Ok fair enough. Noted.

But you seem to have a strongly held opinion that FMF was never saved, as opposed to he was saved but then wasn’t saved.

Why is that?

@divegeester said
Ok fair enough. Noted.

But you seem to have a strongly held opinion that FMF was never saved, as opposed to he was saved but then wasn’t saved.

Why is that?

I've explained my reasoning to him. Had you read this thread, you'd be able to see it in full. You are not very serious about this; if you were, you'd be taking all of this with a completely different attitude. Your dogma has hidden the conversation's importance; you turn it meaningless with your everyone's accepted beliefs.

@kellyjay said
I've explained my reasoning to him.

Just answer the question! Why do you go all furtive and evasive every time someone asks you something.

Why do you presume FMF was never saved, rather than saved but lost it?

@divegeester said
Just answer the question! Why do you go all furtive and evasive every time someone asks you something.

Why do you presume FMF was never saved, rather than saved but lost it?

Seventeen pages of why, and you want me to repeat myself; I'm not being evasive. You are being lazy.

@kellyjay said
Seventeen pages of why, and you want me to repeat myself; I'm not being evasive. You are being lazy.

Grampy Bobby used to insist I was "saved" because I had once believed in Jesus even though I am now an agnostic atheist.