[quote=Silent Running;2781739]When even those who are sympathetic to your beliefs (as I am) cannot but define your argument as such, perhaps the accusation is not as phony as you might think.[\quote]You are correct that it is not a useful point of distinction in terms of what we can argue. However, there are only two possibilities: There is such a thing as a true Christian which has objective reality somewhere. Or, there is no such thing as a true Christian in any sense. If there is such a thing as a true Christian, whether or not I can document it, there is no logical fallacy.

The problem is that other people (myself included) have experienced things your scriptures state cannot happen. Are we to disbelieve our own experiences in favor of your argument?

Experiences can be deceiving. I trust the scriptures.

Oh?

You weren't saying that when muzicman said the exact same thing on page 1.

But yeah, its actually completely in line with this discussion.

If I was never a real christian, as proved to you by my eventual apostasy, then neither you nor anyone you know can be sure your real christians because you might apostate one day.

Originally posted by themuzicman

Um.. the author is saying that he doesn't believe any of his readers have taken this path, and thus this is a warning, not a condemnation. If this path is impossible, then the author is lying.

However, this path is clearly possible, as the Hebrews were headed down it.

Anyone who progresses this path is. There are.

I read the passage differently, obviously. Since this passage is subject to a number of approaches on either side it does not serve any purpose here. My response was intended, not to convince you, but to mirror your rather arrogant post.

Not that,

muz's first post.

Your one to call people arrogant now, when your dismissing anyone who ever believed as not actually being christians.

The only way for a Christian to stop being a Christian is to stop believing in Jesus. That's why enemies of Christ always state that he didn't exist and that he's a myth.

Originally posted by Jaecp

Not that,

muz's first post.

Huh?

Your one to call people arrogant now, when your dismissing anyone who ever believed as not actually being christians.

In that case it is arrogant to express any opinion.

Originally posted by canuckaho

The only way for a Christian to stop being a Christian is to stop believing in Jesus. That's why enemies of Christ always state that he didn't exist and that he's a myth.

This isn't actually true.

Plenty of atheists have no problem with a person named jesus existing, or even that he was an influential teacher who reformed judaism. We generally draw the line at magic and need a bit more to go off of to believe that element.

In that case it is arrogant to express any opinion.

Your categorically dismissing anyone who ever leaves christianity as not being christian in the first place. This is highly arrogant. That its your opinion is beside the fact that it is arrogant.

Originally posted by Jedidiah

Originally posted by Jaecp

If what jed is saying is true, then no one could honestly say they are christian with any real conviction if they won't know if they are True Christians™ until after they die.

This is a whole different discussion which is not a productive area to discuss with non believers.

It is very relevant to this discussion. If there are people who think they are Christians -- but really aren't Christians -- and people who think they are Christians -- and really are -- then the questions arise of whether and how a supposed Christian can determine his status.

One way to go is to say no supposed Christian can determine his own status. Easy to deny the existence of former Christians at that point. Honestly reported feelings and doctrines of supposed former Christians become irrelevant.

The other way to go is to affirm that supposed Christians can examine themselves to determine their status. But if so, how exactly? It MUST be an open set of criteria which both false and true Christians can understand and reflect upon. Here's why:

True Christian ---reliable reflection---> affirmation
False Christian ---unreliable reflection---> affirmation or denial

So any supposed Christian who reflects on the criteria can draw no conclusion from an affirmative evaluation! If you want to claim true Christians can determine that they are true Christians, you will need to provide criteria which even false Christians (and accurately reporting "former Christians") can understand and realize excludes them.

Originally posted by Jaecp

We generally draw the line at magic and need a bit more to go off of to believe that element.

Jesus was accused of Demonology, but not of Magic. (ie. David Copperfield, Houdini etc.) Unless you are referring to the Magick ?

Sincerely
HH.

What the narrative has him described as being accused of is irrespective of the magical powers he is described as using.

So which is it 'magic' or 'magical power', either way please elaborate how you understand the word 'magic' as found in the following sentence ...'We generally draw the line at magic and need a bit more to go off of to believe that element.' (Jaecp) ?

Sincerely,
HH

Magical stuff,

You know, flying, walking through walls, etc etc

Hence your statement should have read:

'We generally draw the line at magic[al stuff. ie. flying, walking through walls etc. etc] and need a bit more to go off of to believe that element.'

What then is it that 'we [...] need a bit more to go off to believe that element' ?

Sincerely,
HH.

My statement is sufficient.

Why would you figure I meant, as your other thread would attest, stage magic? No reason to.

To your last bit, Insufficient evidence to warrant belief in the magical stuff that occurs in many parts of the bible. Thats what it boils down to anyway.

Originally posted by Jaecp

My statement is sufficient.

I understand your view a little betterr now.

Why would you figure I meant, as your other thread would attest, stage magic? No reason to.

It would seem to be a view that is held by those who dismiss what Jesus did as being no more than natural or supernatural, and not neccesarily something which could be described as beyond explanation.

To your last bit, Insufficient evidence to warrant belief in the magical stuff that occurs in many parts of the bible. Thats what it boils down to anyway.

Have you done much reading about the reliability of the New Testament documents ? I guess that is probably a huge jump for someone like yourself who does not believe in the existence of God, but it might be something I could help you with if you like. Or, you could take my advice and speak to Dr. Jack Gibson ( Mathetes @ Apologetics.com )

I think when you refer to what you call 'magic' or 'magical stuff', it would probably be better just to use the word 'miracles'. That way 'we' know that 'we' know what 'we' are all talking about.

Savvy.
HH

Reliability doesn't mean true HH ;0