@fmf saidBut you haven't cleared this up in the least, and if this was your intent with your question, you certainly picked a roundabout question which doesn't even address whether you and someone who was never a Christian have any differences at all.
I am going to ask no more times, now that I have cleared up whether, to your way of thinking, being an ex-Christian [and therefore an ex-believer in the resurrection] makes me different from someone who was never one.
That you both have rejected the Christ, and that this doesn't necessarily involve the work of Satan, is an extraordinarily narrow point to draw a potential difference or equivalence from. It certainly does not indicate that you have no differences from someone who has never been a Christian, nor does it indicate that you, having once been a Christian, are now equivalent to one who has never been a Christian. I do not see how Satan enters into this comparison at all.
@suzianne saidYour answer to both questions made you view very clear to me.
But you haven't cleared this up in the least, and if this was your intent with your question, you certainly picked a roundabout question which doesn't even address whether you and someone who was never a Christian have any differences at all
1 edit
@suzianne saidIt's strange that you are saying it to me like this and yet I can't remember you once saying it to any of your fellow Christians who have probably mentioned "Satan" in posts addressed to me ~ describing or confronting my lack of belief, and my "rejection" of Christ" and my general behaviour ~ than any other poster here for years and years. Odd that.
That you both have rejected the Christ, and that this doesn't necessarily involve the work of Satan, is an extraordinarily narrow point to draw a potential difference or equivalence from. It certainly does not indicate that you have no differences from someone who has never been a Christian, nor does it indicate that you, having once been a Christian, are now equivalent to one who has never been a Christian. I do not see how Satan enters into this comparison at all.
@fmf saidI certainly would not use a hypothetical which hypothesizes something that has already happened.
Don't you use past tense and "would" in that way in U.S. English?
My point is that he is already married. He then says "If I got married..."
My reaction would be the same if he had gone ahead and announced that he had suddenly got married, as in his hypothetical.
Would it make sense to you if I started a hypothetical with "If I were a woman..."?
Anyway, why interject and attempt to beat me over the head with your semantics? I asked him a question, he can answer it.
@fmf saidWhy mention it?
It's strange that you are saying it to me like this and yet I can't remember you once saying it to any of your fellow Christians who have probably mentioned "Satan" in posts addressed to me ~ describing or confronting my lack of belief, and my "rejection" of Christ" and my general behaviour ~ than any other poster here. Odd that.
It seems quite stupid to me on the face of it.
I don't argue with children when they claim to be slaying a dragon with their cardboard sword, either.
@suzianne saidThe fact that he is already married does not affect the grammatical construction he used. If, on the other hand, he had said "If I get married I will tell the forum", then one might ask him "Does the current Mrs divegeester know about this?"
I certainly would not use a hypothetical which hypothesizes something that has already happened.
My point is that he is already married. He then says "If I got married..."
My reaction would be the same if he had gone ahead and announced that he had suddenly got married, as in his hypothetical.
Would it make sense to you if I started a hypothetical with "If I were a ...[text shortened]... and attempt to beat me over the head with your semantics? I asked him a question, he can answer it.