@fmf saidThere is at least one alternative interpretation. It might go something like this: although you then had a firm conviction that your faith was genuine, it was not. What you had was merely a subjective impression but not backed up by objective salvational grace (which only God can bestow). If it had been backed up by the objective salvational grace which only God can bestow, you wouldn't have lost it. In other words, you would not necessarily be lying now about what you felt then.
Indeed, and I think KellyJay is seeking to poison the well ~ at least between him and me ~ by bandying about the word "lying"...
As in: if I insist that I had faith that was real to me back then, before I lost it, then, because I lost it, I must be lying about how real it was to me back then. Stuff like that.
See how many times he mentions "lying" or alludes to it while h ...[text shortened]... i]seeing as they lost it, who knows whether or not they were lying about it all along?[/i] etc. etc.
For me, the psychologically interesting thing about losing faith is neither the before-state of faith nor the after-state of escape/apostasy, but the process of re-orienting the entire belief system. How a doubt creeps in, how it spreads, how the psyche struggles to dissolve the doubt while keeping as much as possible of the prior belief-system intact, the moment of dam-break when the flood waters of an alternative worldview can no longer be held back, etc.
@moonbus saidIf I believe 3+4=9 and discover I was wrong did I lose anything by being corrected? If I had a friend and due to some reason we part as enemies did I lose something when I no longer have that friend?
There is at least one alternative interpretation. It might go something like this: although you then had a firm conviction that your faith was genuine, it was not. What you had was merely a subjective impression but not backed up by objective salvational grace (which only God can bestow). If it had been backed up by the objective salvational grace which only God can bestow, y ...[text shortened]... ment of dam-break when the flood waters of an alternative worldview can no longer be held back, etc.
@moonbus saidIn what way would this "salvational grace" be "objective" even if my conviction that it was real was very strong and even if the conviction affected my life in reality?
There is at least one alternative interpretation. It might go something like this: although you then had a firm conviction that your faith was genuine, it was not. What you had was merely a subjective impression but not backed up by objective salvational grace (which only God can bestow). If it had been backed up by the objective salvational grace which only God can bestow, you wouldn't have lost it.
@fmf saidYour focus is still on you, the Spirit of God in us is what is important otherwise it’s just in His name.
In what way would this "salvational grace" be "objective" even if my conviction that it was real was very strong and even if the conviction affected my life in reality?
@kellyjay saidI used to feel as if "the Spirit of God" was real - just like you feel it is real, and I used to feel it was "in" me just like you feel it is "in" you. Furthermore, I used to think "the Spirit of God" is what is important, just like you think "the Spirit of God" is what is important.
Your focus is still on you, the Spirit of God in us is what is important otherwise it’s just in His name.
@kellyjay saidIf you held Hindu beliefs from 1987 till 1999 and then held Sikh beliefs to be true from 1999 till 2015, would you - as a Sikh, in 2003 - be lying if you said you had held Hindu beliefs to be true in, say, 1994?
If I believe 3+4=9 and discover I was wrong did I lose anything by being corrected? If I had a friend and due to some reason we part as enemies did I lose something when I no longer have that friend?
@fmf saidIn case anyone is in any doubt about this, I think I should point out that fmf's reply is metaphorical, that we are not actually, literally, playing the game of bingo here and that I have not actually, literally, lined up my chips on the numbers called.
Bingo! 🙂
😉
@moonbus saidLife is but a long patient wait for a knock at the door, two fat ladies and Kelly's eye.
In case anyone is in any doubt about this, I think I should point out that fmf's reply is metaphorical, that we are not actually, literally, playing the game of bingo here and that I have not actually, literally, lined up my chips on the numbers called.
@fmf saidWell, that is the crux of the biscuit for Christianity, isn't it? Ex hypothesi, one cannot know, in the strong objective sense of "know", until after death -- assuming there is an after death. And if there isn't, then one didn't. That's why there is so much emphasis on faith (on believing) in something for which there is no adequate evidence we can examine here and now.
In what way would this "salvational grace" be "objective" even if my conviction that it was real was very strong and even if the conviction affected my life in reality?
@moonbus saidWell, yes. This is a hill upon which I have long fought gamely here on this forum ~ and yet I've not yet succumbed to the death that might immediately - perhaps - prove KellyJay [and others] right and me wrong about what the unknowable "truth" had been all along.
Well, that is the crux of the biscuit for Christianity, isn't it? Ex hypothesi, one cannot know, in the strong objective sense of "know", until after death -- assuming there is an after death. And if there isn't, then one didn't. That's why there is so much emphasis on faith (on believing) in something for which there is no adequate evidence we can examine here and now.
@fmf saidYou can not know what I have you can only say what you had, and any and all comparisons by you are pure conjecture. In other words speak for yourself.
I used to feel as if "the Spirit of God" was real - just like you feel it is real, and I used to feel it was "in" me just like you feel it is "in" you. Furthermore, I used to think "the Spirit of God" is what is important, just like you think "the Spirit of God" is what is important.
@kellyjay saidNo, it's alright, I will speak for both of us because faith is faith is faith, after all. My insight into your faith, having experiential knowledge of my own, is that ~ regardless of how much solace and assurance it gives you ~ it's just a function of cognition and not something supernatural.
You can not know what I have you can only say what you had, and any and all comparisons by you are pure conjecture. In other words speak for yourself.
@fmf saidDon't be a coward, KellyJay.
I detected what may have been some sort of snide comment about my own personal moral code vis a vis marriage and divorce earlier from you, at least in its intention. Do you have some comment to make about "divorce in [FMF's] world"? I am asking you point-blank to clarify. Please don't run away.
@fmf saidI often wonder why you engage with others when you can speak for others, even those who disagree with you.
No, it's alright, I will speak for both of us because faith is faith is faith, after all. My insight into your faith, having experiential knowledge of my own, is that ~ regardless of how much solace and assurance it gives you ~ it's just a function of cognition and not something supernatural.
@kellyjay saidI engage people to see what they say about what they believe and to see what they say about what I believe.
I often wonder why you engage with others when you can speak for others, even those who disagree with you.
Now you know what I think about your preposterous claim that your faith transforms you supernaturally.
If you want to talk about your faith in action, moral issues and interactions, applications of the commandments, feelings about death, life, sexuality, marriage, grief, childrearing, health, politics, literature, popular culture, history, anthropology - if you want to tell me things I disagree with when it comes to your Christian outlook and your walking of your Christian walk, then I won't speak for you, of course. Why would I?