22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am not speculating, I am asking you if you would ever entertain the thought that maybe the form of Christianity that you had was not genuine?
"Genuine" by whose estimation? It's of zero interest.
When you say it felt genuine at the time you are not answering my question are you?
Yes I was. Your take on what is or isn't "genuine" is of zero interest. And I am not touting what I used to believe as being objectively or theologically or technically "genuine". So it's of zero interest. The only relevant application of the word "genuine" to the thing we are talking about is the way I used it. It felt "genuine" to me. But it's a thing of the past.
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFSo you would not entertain the thought that it was not genuine? Is that your answer?
[b]I am not speculating, I am asking you if you would ever entertain the thought that maybe the form of Christianity that you had was not genuine?
"Genuine" by whose estimation? It's of zero interest.
When you say it felt genuine at the time you are not answering my question are you?
Yes I was. Your take on what is or isn't "genuine" is of z ...[text shortened]... e are talking about is the way I used it. It felt "genuine" to me. But it's a thing of the past.[/b]
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou asked me if thought it was genuine at the time. And I already answered in my previous post: of course. Like I said, what a strange question. And like I said, if I didn't think my faith was genuine back at that time - like I said, in my previous post - why would I have self-identified as a Christian?
So your answer to my question is yes or no?
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFMaybe the question wasn't clear or you pretend not to understand it.
You asked me if thought it was genuine at the time. And I already answered in my previous post: of course. Like I said, what a strange question. And like I said, if I didn't think my faith was genuine back at that time - like I said, in my previous post - why would I have self-identified as a Christian?
The question was: Would you ever entertain the slightest possibility that maybe what you used to believe (was genuine) was maybe not the genuine article of Christianity in its purest form? (Implying that there may still be a 'genuine form of Christianity' out there that you have not tried yet)
Is your answer yes or no?
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhen you say "the genuine article of Christianity in its purest form" whose definitions of "genuine" and "purest form" do you have in mind?
Maybe the question wasn't clear or you pretend not to understand it.
The question was: Would you ever entertain the slightest possibility that maybe what you used to believe (was genuine) was maybe not the genuine article of Christianity in its purest form? (Implying that there may still be a 'genuine form of Christianity' out there that you have not tried yet)
Is your answer yes or no?
The Christianity I professed felt - at the time - genuine to me, by my estimation - but, as I have explained, I am not a Christian anymore.
Now, although what different kinds of Christians happen to think and claim and hope and do (or don't do) is still quite interesting to me, not being a Christian anymore means that I don't find any one strand of Christianity to be of a more "genuine form" than any other, because I don't share any of the beliefs anymore.
Now there you go. Let's hope you're not going to pretend that you don't understand this clear and detailed answer of mine. 🙂
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFI am referring to the common english usage, dictionary definitions of the words.
When you say "the genuine article of Christianity in its purest form" whose definitions of "genuine" and "purest form" do you have in mind?
The Christianity I professed felt - at the time - genuine to me, by my estimation - but, as I have explained, I am not a Christian anymore.
Now, although what different kinds of Christians happen to think and claim a ...[text shortened]... you're not going to pretend that you don't understand this clear and detailed answer of mine. 🙂
I take your answer to be no then?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkJudging by your rather disingenuous responses to me engaging you on this with the proper, candid answer I've offered, I have to conclude that your question (and intent) is not serious. Perhaps you have never met an ex-Christian or ex-believer before, and you simply don't know how to discuss 'lost faith'. Or perhaps your interest is not sincere.
I am referring to the common english usage, dictionary definitions of the words.
I take your answer to be no then?
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFIn case you have not noticed my intent I will spell it out to you. The reason I ask this question is to establish whether or not you are open to the possibility that the version of Christianity you 'experienced' and consequently rejected may not have been the 'true' or authentic one. Because if you are not open to that possibility, then clearly I would be wasting my time conversing with you.
Judging by your rather disingenuous responses to me engaging you on this with the proper, candid answer I've offered, I have to conclude that your question (and intent) is not serious. Perhaps you have never met an ex-Christian or ex-believer before, and you simply don't know how to discuss 'lost faith'. Or perhaps your interest is not sincere.
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am not a Christian, Fetchmyjunk, so whose estimation of what is supposedly "genuine" Christianity or what is the "purest form" of Christianity would I use? Yours? Your question on this is like a parody of genuine discussion.
In case you have not noticed my intent I will spell it out to you. The reason I ask this question is to establish whether or not you are open to the possibility that the version of Christianity you 'experienced' and consequently rejected may not have been the 'true' or authentic one. Because if you are not open to that possibility, then clearly I would be wasting my time conversing with you.
Originally posted by FMFOk let me phrase it this way. If there is a 'genuine article' of anything that exists, say leather, does it not follow logically that there will also be counterfeit products of leather out there? I feel a lot of people try 'Christianity' but unfortunately it is counterfeit (dead) Christianity which doesn't bring life. People are disappointed by this and give it up. The also assume that the brand of Christianity that they have tried is the only one that is out there and they don't realise that it was in fact fake/dead(The letter kills but the spirit brings life). I was also part of a dead church for 25 years and was disillusioned and almost lost my faith because of it. Then I realised that the version of Christianity that I had been following was dead and there were other versions out there that brought life.
I am not a Christian, Fetchmyjunk, so whose estimation of what is supposedly "genuine" Christianity or what is the "purest form" of Christianity would I use? Yours? Your question on this is like a parody of genuine discussion.
22 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI see. Well I felt it was "genuine" and "living" for many years. But now I'm not a Christian so what I think of it is neither here nor there. My problem was not with denominations or style or competing theologies. I wasn't disappointed by my church or my Christian fellowship at all. There was no problem with my church being "dead"; it's very much alive and kicking. My problem was with my belief in the Bible. No Bible, no Christianity.
Ok let me phrase it this way. If there is a 'genuine article' of anything that exists, say leather, does it not follow logically that there will also be counterfeit products of leather out there? I feel a lot of people try 'Christianity' but unfortunately it is counterfeit (dead) Christianity which doesn't bring life. People are disappointed by this and ...[text shortened]... ty that I had been following was dead and there were other versions out there that brought life.