Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Forms?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
PerciFlage
Established Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:01 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by PerciFlage »

Kurieuo wrote:Interestingly, many Christians (notwithstanding experiences of a spiritual kind claimed by other religions) swear to a spiritual awareness that seems as real, if not more real at times, than sight, smell, touch, taste and sound. How does one rule out the possibility of an illusion or delusion when it comes to phenomenal experiences whether of a physical or spiritual kind?
As with your earlier post re. qualia, I am totally unable to say whether another person's spiritual awareness is authentic or the product of illusion. As per my previous post, if I had such an experience myself and I was happy it was authentic then I would be happy to believe that whatever spiritual quality it revealed was real on subjective grounds alone.

I perhaps should have said "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to "100% certain", but they amount to the same thing. I am "100% certain" of something when the objective or subjective evidence puts it beyond a reasonable doubt to me, but then I suspect the same statement holds true of every other person. Brain in a vat or not.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Kurieuo »

PerciFlage wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Interestingly, many Christians (notwithstanding experiences of a spiritual kind claimed by other religions) swear to a spiritual awareness that seems as real, if not more real at times, than sight, smell, touch, taste and sound. How does one rule out the possibility of an illusion or delusion when it comes to phenomenal experiences whether of a physical or spiritual kind?
As with your earlier post re. qualia, I am totally unable to say whether another person's spiritual awareness is authentic or the product of illusion. As per my previous post, if I had such an experience myself and I was happy it was authentic then I would be happy to believe that whatever spiritual quality it revealed was real on subjective grounds alone.

I perhaps should have said "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to "100% certain", but they amount to the same thing. I am "100% certain" of something when the objective or subjective evidence puts it beyond a reasonable doubt to me, but then I suspect the same statement holds true of every other person. Brain in a vat or not.
Hmm. Consider a moment a person who is visually blind from birth.

What would you say to such a blind person who questioned whether people around him/her really did have the perspective to see things including colours, objects and others?

Avoiding the complexities that arise in that you can't truly verify they aren't robotic or something else...

Is there anything you would do to try and convince them of the truth of matters? Or is such simply a hopeless situation?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
PerciFlage
Established Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:01 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by PerciFlage »

In such a situation I'd tell the blind person to arrange an experiment where the blind person gets several seeing people to tell them what object they are holding without touching the object.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Kurieuo »

PerciFlage wrote:In such a situation I'd tell the blind person to arrange an experiment where the blind person gets several seeing people to tell them what object they are holding without touching the object.
And you think that ought to be enough to convince a blind person who is skeptical of vision? (I have no identified goal to my questions, I'm just rather intrigued...)
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
PerciFlage
Established Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:01 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by PerciFlage »

Kurieuo wrote:
PerciFlage wrote:In such a situation I'd tell the blind person to arrange an experiment where the blind person gets several seeing people to tell them what object they are holding without touching the object.
And you think that ought to be enough to convince a blind person who is skeptical of vision?
Or something indistinguishable from vision, yes. There would be issues with, ironically, making sure that the experiment was sufficiently blinded, but enough properly blinded experiments of that ilk should be enough to convince a blind person that vision is a real phenomenon.

One could even devise experiments for attributes that are denied to a blind person through their body alone. For instance a blind person could be given a spectrograph that they could use (with audio output, for example), could verify that the supposedly seeing person didn't have a similar object and verify whether or not they were able to determine the colour of an object.

Edit - there's an analogue here to the tests that non-psychic people use to put people who purport to have psychic abilities to the test. Putting to one side the fact that the tester has no psychic ability, can the testee act in a way that is consistent with abilities that are best described as psychic under experimental conditions?
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Jac3510 »

Perci,

How is your position distinguishable from A. J. Ayer's logical positivism, i.e., the notion that the only statements that are meaningful and can be regarded as true in any legitimate sense are either analytical (as opposed to synthetic -- "All triangles have three sides" vs "That triangle is blue) or empirically testable?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
PerciFlage
Established Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:01 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by PerciFlage »

Jac3510 wrote:Perci,

How is your position distinguishable from A. J. Ayer's logical positivism, i.e., the notion that the only statements that are meaningful and can be regarded as true in any legitimate sense are either analytical (as opposed to synthetic -- "All triangles have three sides" vs "That triangle is blue) or empirically testable?
Because I acknowledge that not all true things are necessarily testable, and that meaningful statements can be made by speakers - meaningful at least to themselves - based on their subjective experience even if they can't demonstrate them objectively to others.
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by B. W. »

A. J. Ayer's Near-Death Experience
Article quoted from this link: http://www.acts17.net/2013/07/a-j-ayers ... ience.html

Sir Alfred Jules Ayer (A. J. Ayer to most of us, but "Freddie" to those who knew him) was one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, remembered primarily for his defense of the (now discredited) verification principle associated with Logical Positivism. Ayer was also one of the century's premier defenders of atheism, regarding the statement "God exists" as meaningless (though also regarding the statement "God does not exist" as meaningless). He debated the Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston, with whom he eventually became close friends.

In 1988, while hospitalized for pneumonia, Ayer choked on a piece of fish, went into cardiac arrest, and was dead for four minutes. After being revived, he wrote about his experience in an article titled "What I Saw When I Was Dead":

. . . The only memory that I have of an experience, closely encompassing my death, is very vivid.

I was confronted by a red light, exceedingly bright, and also very painful even when I turned away from it. I was aware that this light was responsible for the government of the universe. Among its ministers were two creatures who had been put in charge of space.

These ministers periodically inspected space and had recently carried out such an inspection. They had, however, failed to do their work properly, with the result that space, like a badly fitting jigsaw puzzle, was slightly out of joint.

A further consequence was that the laws of nature had ceased to function as they should. I felt that it was up to me to put things right. I also had the motive of finding a way to extinguish the painful light. I assumed that it was signaling that space was awry and that it would switch itself off when order was restored.

Unfortunately, I had no idea where the guardians of space had gone and feared that even if I found them I should not be able to communicate with them.

It then occurred to me that whereas, until the present century, physicists accepted the Newtonian severance of space and time, it had become customary, since the vindication of Einstein's general theory of relativity, to treat space-time as a single whole. Accordingly, I thought that I could cure space by operating upon time.

I was vaguely aware that the ministers who had been given charge of time were in my neighborhood and I proceeded to hail them. I was again frustrated. Either they did not hear me, or they chose to ignore me, or they did not understand me. I then hit upon the expedient of walking up and down, waving my watch, in the hope of drawing their attention not to my watch itself but to the time which it measured. This elicited no response. I became more and more desperate, until the experience suddenly came to an end. . . .

Ayer's story spread rapidly, and he ended up downplaying the impact the experience had on him. However, Dr. Jeremy George, who was attending Ayer the night of his temporary death, suggested that Ayer's Near-Death Experience affected him much more deeply than he later let on. Dr. George describes his exchange with Ayer:

Very discreetly, I asked him, as a philosopher, what was it like to have had a near-death experience? He suddenly looked rather sheepish. Then he said, "I saw a Divine Being. I’m afraid I’m going to have to revise all my various books and opinions."
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Jac3510 »

PerciFlage wrote:Because I acknowledge that not all true things are necessarily testable, and that meaningful statements can be made by speakers - meaningful at least to themselves - based on their subjective experience even if they can't demonstrate them objectively to others.
But that wouldn't apply to "public" knowledge, would it? I can tell you that I've had a direct experience of God (which I have), and by your criteria, that's sufficient for me to have true knowledge of His existence. But that is not sufficient for you, because you don't have that experience. So in practice, this "public" knowledge seems to just be Ayer's logical positivism. :?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
PerciFlage
Established Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:01 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by PerciFlage »

Jac3510 wrote:
PerciFlage wrote:Because I acknowledge that not all true things are necessarily testable, and that meaningful statements can be made by speakers - meaningful at least to themselves - based on their subjective experience even if they can't demonstrate them objectively to others.
But that wouldn't apply to "public" knowledge, would it? I can tell you that I've had a direct experience of God (which I have), and by your criteria, that's sufficient for me to have true knowledge of His existence. But that is not sufficient for you, because you don't have that experience. So in practice, this "public" knowledge seems to just be Ayer's logical positivism. :?
A logical positivist would say that because your direct experience of god is internal to you and therefore not in itself amendable to empiricism (assuming that is what you're actually saying), that your experience therefore cannot be true, or at least not meaningfully true, no?

To modify K's earlier analogy of a blind person, you can tell me that you have had a direct experience of God. That may or may not be true - if it were true then it may mean that you can tell me something which only a person with a direct experience of God could tell me, regardless of whether I can have a direct experience of God myself. If you were unable to tell me something of that nature then it wouldn't necessarily mean that God does not exist, just that you were unable to give an empirical proof of God (or something indistinguishable from God).
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Kurieuo »

PerciFlage wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:
PerciFlage wrote:Because I acknowledge that not all true things are necessarily testable, and that meaningful statements can be made by speakers - meaningful at least to themselves - based on their subjective experience even if they can't demonstrate them objectively to others.
But that wouldn't apply to "public" knowledge, would it? I can tell you that I've had a direct experience of God (which I have), and by your criteria, that's sufficient for me to have true knowledge of His existence. But that is not sufficient for you, because you don't have that experience. So in practice, this "public" knowledge seems to just be Ayer's logical positivism. :?
A logical positivist would say that because your direct experience of god is internal to you and therefore not in itself amendable to empiricism (assuming that is what you're actually saying), that your experience therefore cannot be true, or at least not meaningfully true, no?

To modify K's earlier analogy of a blind person, you can tell me that you have had a direct experience of God. That may or may not be true - if it were true then it may mean that you can tell me something which only a person with a direct experience of God could tell me, regardless of whether I can have a direct experience of God myself. If you were unable to tell me something of that nature then it wouldn't necessarily mean that God does not exist, just that you were unable to give an empirical proof of God (or something indistinguishable from God).
Many though claim to have had that same experience of the divine.

Further, I've been around enough Christians to know that what I have phenomenally experienced of God's presence, looks to be very similar to others. Such that, Christians often possess a common ground wherein such can be and is often discussed. Furthermore, I'll add it's not just a phenomenal experience of some spiritual nature, but also a spiritual perception wherein God becomes quite clear and pervades everything. Some sort of veil becomes lifted to those who seek after/God reveals Himself to.

Yet, in the same way the "visually blind man" could discard all your "evidence" because he lacks any such experience, so too can you dismiss our own experiences. And when we present arguments based on logic and reality, you too can dismiss that type of evidence by retreating into an agnostic stance. Even inconsistently retreating into a form of ontological nihilism which you happily ignore to live your life in some practical and rational manner (for example crossing the road to avoid cars), but then embrace when dealing with logical arguments that you don't like the conclusion/s of regarding reality and metaphysical matters.

Now, many Christians like myself, Jac, B.W. and others here might all be deluded or believe an illusion akin to what Freud and Kant argued. But, consider this...

A visually blind person if/when they deny the existence of visually seeing things is speaking from a lack of experience. Likewise, the spiritually blind person if/when they deny the existence of something spiritual is speaking from a lack of experience. Only one group of people are speaking from a position with a higher viewpoint and it ain't the blinded person/s.

Consider further. If everyone were born without sight, and someone claimed to have visually seen what you look like, there is no way he/she could prove to you what they saw beyond trying to describe the experience in non-visual terms that convey his/her phenomenal experience of visual qualia. He/she might point out things about reality that support the substance of such experiences. But, there is absolutely nothing he/she could do to convince you or others of their experience.

There are only two options: either the people who spiritually see are deluded or believe an illusion, or those who haven't had such a spiritual experience suffer some spiritual impairment such that they remain blinded both experientially and perceptually.

Finally, I'd like to pose this question. Who should be trusted more -- the group of people who argues from shared similar experience of vision, or the side argues from what they have not experienced?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Neha
Recognized Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:55 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Neha »

Jac3510 wrote:Neha,

What I offered aren't big claims. They're just simple observations. And my basis for them? Your own comments in this thread demonstrating that you don't understand Scripture, including your poor attempt at contextual analysis of Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees (as if His comments to them were the only ones that serve as biblical examples of my point, regardless).

As for respect, it's rather clear you didn't come here seeking respect. You people seldom do. You come here with an obvious bias against Christianity, with little more than thinly veiled vitriol, and it soon shows itself. You are little more than preachers who are afraid to put your own beliefs on the table, content to toss bombs from the sidelines. So believe you me, I would never accuse you of seeking respect.

And my own effectiveness? I'll simply continue to laugh and recognize that such a comment further proves my points.

The thing is, you see arrogance and a holier-than-though attitude and rudeness and such things. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind or leading you to think otherwise. You won't be here very long. My interest is far more in the community of people who actually have been and will continue posting here. I've been here ten years. Some have been here with me all that time. Some less. But I know them, and they know me. More than that, they know your act. They know the kind of person who feigns a open mindedness and Perci's weak agnosticism but who is really debating from a very firm set of anti-Christian presuppositions that they're either ignorant of (and thus, lack self-awareness) or are too afraid to put themselves out in the open. They also know genuine people when they see them--people who don't believe, but who are really interested in why we believe like we do. Those people are treated with exactly the respect they give us. But those of you who come into our house and don't grant us the courtesy of getting to know us and getting to know our beliefs, well you get exactly what you provide. You don't and won't see that, but people like Rick and FL and K and Byblos and Ryan (and others, I just mention them because they're regulars who recently posted in this thread), they all see it, and that is quite enough for me. Take it however you like, but that's the way we all see you. And we're right about you.

So feel free to continue lecturing me. It's a tired act, one we've all seen ten million times before. I'll simply leave you with that great conclusion from the great American philosopher, Will Hunting, who said: "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ******* education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library! . . . At least I won't be unoriginal."

Have whatever last word you like.

----------------------------------
So was my post, simple observations - Jac, your use of those verses were poor to begin with. You have made this into a piss-off contest. If I had been interested in insulting your faith, I'd have had done it already. But I think you are blinded by your anti-atheist agenda. So have fun. I didn't write this to have a last word, unlike you, I am not laughing. And talking about courtesy of getting to know people, you should take your own advice.
Last edited by Neha on Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Kurieuo »

Neha wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Neha,

What I offered aren't big claims. They're just simple observations. And my basis for them? Your own comments in this thread demonstrating that you don't understand Scripture, including your poor attempt at contextual analysis of Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees (as if His comments to them were the only ones that serve as biblical examples of my point, regardless).

As for respect, it's rather clear you didn't come here seeking respect. You people seldom do. You come here with an obvious bias against Christianity, with little more than thinly veiled vitriol, and it soon shows itself. You are little more than preachers who are afraid to put your own beliefs on the table, content to toss bombs from the sidelines. So believe you me, I would never accuse you of seeking respect.

And my own effectiveness? I'll simply continue to laugh and recognize that such a comment further proves my points.

The thing is, you see arrogance and a holier-than-though attitude and rudeness and such things. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind or leading you to think otherwise. You won't be here very long. My interest is far more in the community of people who actually have been and will continue posting here. I've been here ten years. Some have been here with me all that time. Some less. But I know them, and they know me. More than that, they know your act. They know the kind of person who feigns a open mindedness and Perci's weak agnosticism but who is really debating from a very firm set of anti-Christian presuppositions that they're either ignorant of (and thus, lack self-awareness) or are too afraid to put themselves out in the open. They also know genuine people when they see them--people who don't believe, but who are really interested in why we believe like we do. Those people are treated with exactly the respect they give us. But those of you who come into our house and don't grant us the courtesy of getting to know us and getting to know our beliefs, well you get exactly what you provide. You don't and won't see that, but people like Rick and FL and K and Byblos and Ryan (and others, I just mention them because they're regulars who recently posted in this thread), they all see it, and that is quite enough for me. Take it however you like, but that's the way we all see you. And we're right about you.

So feel free to continue lecturing me. It's a tired act, one we've all seen ten million times before. I'll simply leave you with that great conclusion from the great American philosopher, Will Hunting, who said: "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a ******* education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library! . . . At least I won't be unoriginal."

Have whatever last word you like.

----------------------------------
So was my post, simple observations - mister Jac, know all etc. You have made this into a piss-off contest. If I had been interested in insulting your faith, I'd have had done it already. But I think you are blinded by your anti-atheist agenda. So have fun. I didn't write this to have a last word, unlike you, I am not laughing. And talking about courtesy of getting to know people, you should take your own advice.
:wave: :popcorn:
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Neha
Recognized Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:55 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Neha »

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
Neha wrote:I understand the gospel fine and for that matter the bible too.
I don't really want to enter this ''discussion'' but I would like to point out the error in the above sentence. As a former nominal Christian, you must be aware of the numerous biblical verses which state that unbelievers cannot understand the Scriptures, are blinded to the truth, and whose understanding of the things of God is veiled.

As a former life-long atheist myself, I understand that you will consider all of the above rubbish. Even so, it is true. As such, you do not understand the Bible. Sorry.

Carry on.

FL
With all due respect FL, you could be wrong. I just don't believe in God, the rest I do understand, there is no rocket science in the bible, its an easy book with a lot of interpretations, some good others not that good. I mean you understand atheism fine, by your post you seem to imply so. As a former "nominal" christian I understand christianity fine.

I think you guys are having a problem with my saying "I understand the bible". But to further the discussion why not we discuss a biblical topic, lets see how much do we really know. ;)
Neha
Recognized Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:55 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Fo

Post by Neha »

ryanbouma wrote:Neha, I've met countless "atheists" who used to be "Christians" until they went to college and their class mates told them its impossible the earth could be flooded and no boat can hold all the animals, the light bulb burnt out and they abandoned their faith. They usually all went through their transition without so much as a flinch let alone actually picking up a Bible and verifying some things. These have all been people who had no interest in being a Christian in the first place. They were following their parent's orders, that is until they left home and realized they now were making that choice for themselves. Those people are blind and have always been blind in my experience.

I've had countless conversations like this: Ya well give me a break, you really think the entire earth was flooded, come on, you have a geology background, there isn't enough water. *Ryan cracks open a Bible (usually my phone) and reads Gen 6 while explaining how the previous chapters fit and how geology accounts for a flood that filled the earth* Ya well what about the Tower of Babel, what a joke. *I read the, what two? paragraphs that story is* Yaaa well how ridiculous is it that the world is only 5 thousands years old? *Ryan says* Well a lot of Christians believe the universe is 14 bil years old. It's usually the Christians who don't have a science background who read the Gen 1 story as 24 hour periods, but others view it differently. ---- this goes on for a while until it gets boring. You see, the person never actually cared to know truth. They understood the stories the way their Sunday school teacher taught them.

So ya, telling the type of people on this forum you used to be a Christian, holds no water. As far as we're concerned, the unsaved are blind, including you. This is offensive to you I'm sure. I just hope and pray you'll open your eyes to the truth one day. Sin is blinding. Sin is addictive. Sin is damning. Don't wait any longer to shed your pride, because its you who has pride. You only have the rest of your life to accept Christ. How long is that?
And the same goes for you, anyone saying they are former atheists, hold no water for me as well. If anything all I did in this thread was to call Jac out on his cowardly use of words. Its a logical fallacy to simply dismiss a person based on his position, you have to show the position to be faulty, not the person.

So really, you can say I don;t know the bible this and that, what I know can't be changed by what you say but you really have to show me how I don't, rather than just dismiss me, that is absurd and shows a weak standard of debate.

And by the way ryan, I am not one of your bashing atheists, so chill. I didn't come here to vent as that is easy part, anyone can do that, just look at Jac's posts, he is laughing at me because I am so utterly miserable. ;)

I think most of you favor something along the lines of OSAS. If that is true then by your analysis there could only be two answers here, I was never a christian, or I believed once and am now saved. But I was a christian once and when I was one I believed christ which means, I was saved until a point (could be debated by OSAS).

So saying, I was a nominal christian, really holds no weight either. If I believed christ, I was a christian, unless you have a different definition of a christian.

Cheers.
Post Reply