Excellent. Then I'd imagine there is some super theist with whom we can cross-reference our interpretations to see if they are right. Remember, unlike science the Bible contains Absolute Truths. Let's see...

You believe that hell is not eternal. How can we test that to see if you're in the ballpark?
You say that free will is necessary to explain evil. Where can we check for free will?
You say that humans have souls. I think Rite Aid has soul tests on the same shelf as genetic DNA tests.
You believe homosexuality is wrong. Why?
Etc., etc.

Nice post. A christian believes in the bible and god, once he rejects the bible he still has to deal with whether there is a god or not.

The idea that one who leaves the Christian faith should default directly to the deist position is simply asinine, imo.

Jib just says that because he's like half Christian/half Deist.

Biggest softball in the history of RGT?

You may argue with a Christian all you want about whether God exist or not. A Christian will not doubt the existence of god until he lacks faith in the bible.

Rejecting miracles a priori seems to be an automatic argument stopper and it should be. How come we don't argue more on whether or not miracles should be ruled out a priori? Just arguing from a definition and logic standpoint, aren't things that happen not miracles because they are possible? Is anything really a miracle if there is at all a non-zero probability of something occurring? Or am I just wrong in assuming that all miracles should be classified as events that happen when there is a zero probability? But then again, is there any event that has a probability of 0 because then it can't happen unless there is a "miracle"?

I've been drinking and I'm just rambling by now but if people view miracles as things that happen when an event has just a really, really, really low probability, would a better understanding of massive amounts of trials and probability lead to a decreasing in the belief of miracles?

1. Why are you amazed? Because you assume your worldview? Most people who currently call themselves Christians don't understand the biblical presentation of God or close (1,700 pages is def. tl;dr let alone studying it); wouldn't it make sense if former Christians had the same issue?

2. Former atheists who are now Christians (10's of millions) are disregarded as uneducated in atheism/science. Does that amaze you, too? Know what amazes me? Ph.D scientists and other doctors/post grads/highly educated Christians are disregarded as unintelligent/misguided/quacks when they are converted to Christianity.

I guess we're all amazed at something.

No one is arguing a "deep" understanding. It seems to me they're arguing he didn't understand the Gospel, which is the basic (not profound) message of salvation in the Bible.

From what they say he believed, he certainly never heard the Gospel.

3. What in the world is a "touch"? Why should God be found via a "touch"? What kind of mysticism is this? If I go to find evolution via my feelings, is it not there because I don't get gooey feelings from it?

4. Ex-Christians aren't looking for God; they are looking for autonomy in the name of a god; they will most likely find humanism.

5. One and two should be millions down the list of logical likelihood; assuming something on God's part is after millions of possibilities of human fallibility/ill motive. Do you know a human short of his own failings/mistakes/errors/wrong thinking/etc.?

Sounds like the modern theory of evolution.

[/QUOTE]

In another thread you've demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding hermeneutics to any meaningful extent. You have clearly never taken a course in this, and you make a fool of yourself whenever you talk about it (to anyone who has studied hermeneutics or historicity).

It is possible to objectively demonstrate why one's interpretation of something is correct by evaluating the relevant data. Some of these areas are:

*Author intent
*Historical context (date, location, world events at that time, philosophical thinking, etc.)
*Cultural factors
*Original language (archaic or ancient, etc.)
*Immediate context (within the page, section, collection of writings, etc.)
*Exegesis
*Syntax, grammar, etc.
*Logical coherence

Just as the Constitution can be objectively interpreted (yet will be argued for ad infinitum, mostly due to worldview differences and debates over author intent), so can the collection of works known as the Bible. It is 1,700 pages (big pages) by 40 or so authors over 1,500 years in various geographical locations, cultural climates, etc., so it is not an easy task to "accurately handle the word of truth", but it is surely a science and art just as interpreting the Constitution or any other writing including your posts.

There is literally no historical scholar who claims objective interpretation cannot be realized on the whole in the Bible (some areas might be more difficult because of information we lack on background or language, etc.); they would not be able to be a scholar of history if that were the case. If you talk to non-theistic scholars whose domain includes the writings that encompass the Bible, they can do a good job of explaining what authors meant to convey--they know Jesus claimed to be God, and it's not close, they know the early Christian message of salvation was one of faith apart from works, they know the claims and beliefs better than most Christians (not that they believe it). It only takes objective study to see these things.

You have never studied hermeneutics, historicity, or the works that are collectively known as "the Bible". You should not speak to this topic other than your uneducated opinion that since you observe many conflicting interpretations, you don't see how any can be objectively true. This is your logical fallacy; don't state it as dogma.

Ugh, you claim all the time science contains absolute truth; I wonder how you are defining it here.

I can name you one act that can resolve all three of these for you; suicide.

Also, you beg the question in many different ways all throughout that short paragraph; evil doesn't exist in your worldview; if you invoke it, you invoke absolute right and wrong, which invokes a moral law, which invokes a moral law giver. You also beg the question in demanding a naturalistic, empirical demonstration of these metaphysical things; how can you prove these must be demonstrated through your personal epistemological method? It only makes sense that if immaterial things exist, some will not be empirically verifiable, since empiricism is based on the five physical senses and immaterial things, if they exist, are outside the realm of the five senses by definition. That is, their ontology is outside the physical realm, and although sometimes they may breach the physical realm (such as resurrections), why should we demand they must? Even more difficult, how can you prove they must?

If the God of the Bible is true (the Christian position), and He argues homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and an abandonment of the design He created us with (no one can argue as to natural function and purpose against hetero as natural and homosexuality as unnatural--reproduction capability, anatomical structure (vagina is meant to be penetrated, penis is an ideal penetrating instrument, rectum is for excretion and has no natural sexual aspect such as a clitoris or penis head)), how is it not sufficient for a Christian to give this as an answer? Just because some people claim to be Christians and adapt to our culture in approving of homosexuality doesn't mean the Bible is less clear or that conservative, historically consistent Christians are not justified in their position. You need to stop looking only on the surface of disagreements and seek out why people disagree on these things; if it's anything other than the text's fault (such as cultural influence, personal preference and therefore taking a more liberal interpretation which allows for abandoning author intent, worldview bias, etc.), your argument loses all merit.

actually it doesnt make sense. its because i studied my religion that i became disenchanted by it. i think most current christians remain christians because they are more or less ignorant on what their holy book actually says.

if every christian fervently studied the Word, i think you'd find a lot fewer christians on this planet.

regardless, im glad you agree with me anyways. my initial point was that christians bash ex-christians as not having been "true" believers. and you basically reaffirmed my point.

i also like your avatar. im sure jesus would have loved ultimate fighting. nothing like beating the **** out of another human being for entertainment purposes, amirite?

This is actually a really good point. I would tend to agree with your drunken rambling.

this thread is super old, so im not even sure what I was writing in response to, however, to claim that people who convert from Christianity to deism/agnosticism/atheism (like the person in the OP's videos) dont understand or have never heard the Gospel is asinine. But again, I have no idea what you are referring to and dont plan to reread the whole thread.

is your basis for belief purely logical, scientific, and rational in nature? Meaning, you have no personal emotional/spiritual experience to back up your belief? If so, then you are one of kind. Every single Christian I have talked to about their beliefs (which is many) claim some sort of spiritual experience. This is what I meant by "touch". These same Christians will claim that if make an honest effort to ask God to show Himself to you, then He will oblige. If you disagree and believe that people can be "saved" without this spiritual experience, and can logically and rationally come to belief in Christianity without faith, then you have problems with other Christians, not me.

pretty arrogant of you to assume you can speak for all Ex-Christians. Par for the course I guess.

Tell me, what distinguishes between 2 people that both seek after God honestly and with great fervor, and one claims to "find" God, and the other, nothing? Let me guess, the person who finds nothing is making a mistake ... tell me then, why is finding God so difficult and complicated that a person making an honest attempt will mess up so drastically, that God, in his infinite mercy and grace, decides he isn't worthy to find Him?

of all the people to post this... +1 for ironic humor value alone!

I was thinking the exact same thing

OP asked believers to post as to what in the youtube vids' argument might be wrong. I just watched the vids and took notes, and I'll offer my perspective.

First, just a bit about me so you know where my perspective is coming from, my personal experience in seeking the truth of this world was very similar to the youtube vids, but in the opposite direction; I went through everything he did, but from atheism to theism (biblical Christianity). I have literally studied every subject he brought up-formally-mostly at one of the leading undergraduate institutions for biblical study in the U.S., and the other at a liberal arts university continuing in religious and philosophical studies. There is not one issue he brought up that I have not studied in-depth--almost assuredly more than he has (not that this makes me right, but it provides for a background of my perspective).

Second, I agree with OP that this is a great, compelling video series into the mind of a deconverted professing Christian. I'm very grateful you showed us this series, and I enjoyed it immensely. I also appreciate the vid maker, that he was humble and sincere, that he sought to represent the issues honestly.

The vid sections I watched were:

Overview
My Christian Life
Deconversion; The God Concept
Deconversion; Morality
(skipped Deconversion; Prayer)
(Skipped Deconversion; Other Christians 1 + 2)
Deconversion; The Bible (1 + 2)
(Skipped Deconversion; Personal Relationship 1 + 2)
Deconversion; The End
Deconversion; Losing God
Atheism; A New Way of Seeing God
Atheism; Definitions

My skipping was not arbitrary. I skipped Prayer, Other Christians, and Personal Relationship because these are totally flawed reasons to believe in God in the first place (other than supplemental reasons which need to assume Him in the first place), so it's futile to address how he was deconverted from something he should never have had as evidence for God in the first place. I join him in debunking those reasons to believe.

Overall Thoughts

His situation can be summarized briefly by the depiction of a person who was raised in a form of pseudo-Christianity and who was never intellectually nourished within that system. Consequently when he engaged his own rational inquisitiveness, he found the system utterly unsatisfying, insufficient, and faulty. Further, he studied deeper into the issues of a generic pseudo-Christianity and read some books, some theories, and believed virtually the first sources that gave satisfaction to his intellect.

Pseudo-Christianity

The first part of his video series is "...about how I was a Christian for sure", he says. He wants people to understand that he truly believed in his version of the religion of Christianity. I DO believe he did this; I believe he honestly believed and practiced as what he knew to be a Christian. That this version was not actually Christianity is the problem.

Some atheists ITT already have challenged that Christians call anyone who deconverted someone who never really believed in the first place, because they assume their view is true and no one could ever leave the true faith. I understand this contention and how you can think that. I can also see it the other way around--if someone says they are a foremost scientist and then becomes a Creationist, what else is there to conclude but that they are not really a great scientist in the first place? Or otherwise that they are a quack and have severe personal reasons for leaving sound science? So atheists do the same thing-there are 10's of millions of people who go from not believing in a god to believing in Christianity, and they are dismissed in a similar way. I would submit to you that I know some people who really understood the Bible and believed sound doctrine and then went astray from the true Christian belief system; I'm not averse to admitting one can understand the Bible aright and then reject it after years of believing it intellectually. However in the case of this video maker, this was not his experience, and I will demonstrate why.

1. He was raised in a Pentacostal church, a Pentacostal family.

This particular denomination is known for their fideism (faith apart from reason), and for their emphasis on emotion and experience, and lack of attention to scholarly study of the Bible (or any real in-depth study). The fact that he never knew the Bible could be studied academically until he was in college, already in the deconversion process (by his own testimony) is evidence of this fact. Most of what he says about his belief in God is rooted in deep emotionalism and experience, his "feelings", which is in fideism anti-intellectual, and this surely contributes to apostasy (leaving the faith) since God created us with intellects to engage at all times. I would go so far as to say he's so emotionally driven and his faith lacked substance to such a strong extent that I am an atheist in regard to his former faith in the Christian God.

Note: Some examples of his supreme emphasis on emotion and experience:

*"I would pray and I would feel like I would get answrs, sometimes it would feel like a voice...that's much of how I lived my life (feelings). I felt spiritual energy in my life."

*"My connection with God" (sounds New Age; it's a totally unfamiliar term to the Bible)

*:Baptised by the Holy Spirit"--Holy Spirit feeling stuff, super emotional, cultish

*"I was speaking in tongues, laying on the ground...I experienced profound emotions...I established a strong connection with God..."

2. Statements About Salvation

A) "I did get saved multiple times."

It is a clear scriptural heresy that one cannot be "saved" multiple times, and no one would discern that from a natural reading of the text. Of course, by his own admission he never read the Bible for himself until college, so he was taught a cult belief about salvation, very much apart from the Bible.

B) "the practice of getting saved"

There is no "practice" of getting saved. The Bible never speaks to a "practice". This is the cult teaching speaking, the view that you do something, like a ritual practice, to "get saved", and you can lose it, gain it, lose it, gain it.

C) "ask Jesus to come into your heart and change your life and allow you to follow "Him"

This is his explanation of the Gospel, or message of salvation. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever say to ask Jesus into your heart or to change your life. More important is what is conspicuously absent from his message of salvation, which is the entire message of salvation--God's holiness, man's depravity, breaking of the Law, hell and punishment, God's wrath, Jesus as the God-man, Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection...faith in Christ by God's grace, God's promises, heaven and eternal life...righteousness through Christ! The entirety of the gospel message is absent from his belief system. The ONLY message of Christianity is absent from his belief system. Therefore, he was never knowledgeable about what Christianity is. Everything flowed from a caricature--I join him in all his views from his perspective of the straw man he came from. If his view of the Bible's message, of who God is, was accurate (even if not complete, even if not perfect, but accurate so far as he understands it, or foundationally accurate), I would also deconvert in the same exact process he did-I really believe that.

3. He had no formal biblical education.

This is significant because during my first two years of formal education in the Scriptures, literally (excepting not one) all of his arguments against God were addressed fully-and by fully I mean, we read and studied the contentions, the apparent contradictions, the views of those who opposed the Bible, we studied the Christian answers from the top apologists historically and modern day, we went back and forth to conclusion, to resolution. The problems I see in his struggle is that he would come to a problem in the Bible, read a couple sources, and then believe what was more or most compelling. He never heard from true biblical scholars (he doesn't have even one in his entire presentation, and the only one who had a profound influence on him was a denier of Bible truth, someone who is rejected in the Bible-believing community). No wonder he believed atheist resources; he had no respectable response. Much of his arguments are a case of "The first to plead his case seems right until another comes to examine him". Many of his problems/contradictions are not complicated or scholarly, but are surface, shallow contentions that are plastered on the internet like Creationist simplistic arguments against evolution that only convince people who only read 30 minutes a day on the internet for their education. It was clear he hadn't studied the Bible in-depth because he didn't know simple apologetic responses (else he'd have to answer them) except in the case of Luke 1:18 (Judas), in which he didn't have a scholarly response, but he read ONE (1) apologist and made his decision based on that. Really? One source? What are his credentials? How can you read only one explanation of a certain side? And that passage totally destroyed your view of the Bible (he said it crushed his foundation of seeing the Bible as true). Sounds like your foundation was weak in the first place.

4. Royal Rangers gave him a code of ethics to live by (NOT the bible).

That he did not see the ultimate code of ethics in the Scriptures (because he didn't read them) is significant to explain his pseudo-Christianity.

5. His message of salvation is the emotional connection he felt to God.

This is entirely foundationless biblically, logically, intellectually. It is very much against the Bible's message of knowledge leading to God, not feelings.

He only ever knew a straw man version of Christianity; he was never taught, nor did he ever learn, what Christianity is at its very basis and simplest of meanings-Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, our salvation, the God-man who died and rose from the dead. In his entire series, he never mentions the Resurrection once, which is the center and heart of Christianity (well, Jesus' death and Resurrection). The Resurrection is so significant that the Apostle Paul said if that one aspect is not true, all of Christianity is false and we should all be atheists (I Cor. 15). Paul literally says that. Yet this youtube author does not mention it once.

(I will continue in my next post...)

Let me start by saying, TLDR entire post. But this part needs a note:

You say:

I just wanted you to understand that as non-believers, this part is always a laugh. Since nearly every christian is constantly sharing with us what Christianity is, what the truth is, etc., and they're usually disagreeing with half the other people who are the "real Christians."

I mean, Pletho outright admits that 95% of the people who claim to be Christian are wrong. Quizzing Pletho, Splendour, Jib, Gunth, Aaron W might lead the casual observer to believe they're all following different religions. (I'm pretty sure Pletho would say the rest have their heart in the right place but are completely misguided)

Yet, all of these people would probably have no problem agreeing that the former-Christian was never really a Christian. Unlike them. Who understand it correctly. Despite the fact that they all disagree with each other when you get down to the details.

My point- the former Christian was never a real Christian by groups of people who, frankly, don't necessarily agree with each other on what exactly being a Christian means. (What do you have to believe to be one)

Its amusing and frustrating at the same time.

Well, I just read a post that said this thread is super old, so I guess I wont finish...I'll just paste the rest of my notes and I wont go further; too much time already. If anyone wants to discuss, please PM, and if OP or anyone wants me to go through the specific "contradictions", I'd be happy to do so.

Here are the rest of my notes:

The Science of God--he was impressed by that work, which is unbiblical--he's still not heard the case for the biblical account

Prayer is a huge weak part that should fall on itself since it's based on subjectivism

Other Christians is hugely weak example and numbers - can 1.2b be wrong? - this is the cry of evolutionary followers; can the vast majority of credentialed scientists be wrong?

Personal Relationship - most important for him, and his personal experiences with God

Deconversion: Morality

Mistaken notion that whatever is good was good because He made it good (willed it) - He never read Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Puritans, Calvin, Reformers, virtually any solid historical Christian author (!); God's character is the basis for morality, therefore God could NOT command child molestation, rape, etc. and His commands flow from His character, so they can't be arbitrary (such as creating morality from thin air)

Early on I found out the Bible wasn't enough, it didn't have specific enough information. For that information, he'd go by feelings, visions, inspirations...he never had a rational, intellectually viable basis for his beliefs, so they SHOULD crumble, and it's GOOD they crumbled; but he has never studied the rational, intellectual worldview wherein God exists-he should do that next

About his college class, he didn't want to read a book on "being good"-he thought he was already good (!) - Bible strong on people not good, no one is good but God alone (Jesus), there is none good (Romans 3), none righteous, etc.

***Had never witnessed objectivity!!!

I knew 30 seconds in that he'd go to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Also his teacher is obviously a disbeliever when he says no proof can show either way; he's assuming naturalism which begs the very question at hand

Deconversion of morality only attempts to show God's as insufficient; it cannot account for morality in any way; he still assumes the Christian God in demanding Objective, Authoritative Morality is his most fundamental metaphysical or moral belief

Divine Command Theory would erase any objective standard--yet in his denial of God brings him to this very place!

He said he learned how to discover morality, through experience and analysis-this is consistent with God's giving us a conscience (Ro. 2), creating us in His image (Gen. 3) which means rational/logical/truthful

His final moral dilemma was that Good exists--that's his strongest conviction of all!!!

Morality was something He wanted me to discover...truly moral...

ONLY READ THE BIBLE AFTER WORLDVIEW OF SCIENCE OF GOD which denied Bible as true, so he had that presupposition from the start and viewed the whole bible from that lens as opposed to being objective (might be true might not but let me read it first)

After the Acts 1:18 experience the Bible was no longer directly from God to him (stood on its own) but now needed outside resources to prevent from being misunderstood-from the start the Christian position understands through basic hermeneutics that the Bible demands deep study to be understood-2k pages, tons of history, theology, etc.

When he read Mistakes by Moses, did he consult anyone but the ONE source Gerald S.? No.

When he got the "evidential sources" for the Bible being intentionally corrupted, what books did he read that answered those books? None.

His deconversion stories are very general objections that are the most widely known examples, so it's highly unlikely he found these on his own as he went along, and much more likely he was already disbelieving and looking for these.

"I didn't even know there could be scientific arguments as to the Bible's origins." I just always thought they were mysteries. -----therefore when he first saw scientific arguments about the Bible, he assumed they were true when they were really only one view (negative); he never realized there are positive scientific views and never read any

"Truth is a greater good than God" It was not possible for Truth not to exist - this is not true in any particular atheistic worldview; truth can not exist; he still assumes God

"Your understanding is inferior and your logic is flawed; so He is your only redemption" - understanding and logic has nothing to do with condemnation; he has entirely neglected man's rebellion and sin, clearly he doesn't understand human nature from the bible's perspective (thinking himself good and most people good when none are)

its easy for you to bash the person in OP's video when he's not here to defend himself. Not sure why you posted such a long message just to say that the reason he decoverted was because he didn't *really* understand Christianity. All i have to say is your post spews of arrogance, and its no surprise that you are the very type of "Christian" that your own Jesus would shake his head at.

Regardless, I was raised and attended a non-denominational church that emphasized formal biblical study, and everything you have stated is basically common knowledge at my church. Yet somehow I am no longer a Christian. funny.

Megenoita - how long are the original videos? I skipped most of your first post because I haven't seen the original videos. Now I'm curious since they inspired such a thesis as a response. But I'm concerned about the time committment on something that lead to these meaty responses.

they are 10 minutes each. What I find so appalling is that Meg is so confident in his understanding of the OP's belief just from a 10 minute summary of their religious history/experience.

It's only a laugh because you guys miss out on something that is laughable in itself. Let me try to demonstrate. If you tell me your science book says x, y, z, and 4 other people say different things, it's really funny how they all disagree-if I don't go read the text myself and see what it really says. If it says x, y, z, then I understand one is right and others are wrong. Why are they wrong? Well, if you look on a GAMBLING forum for views on Christianity or any moral issue, you will get a ton of uninformed, screwball degen responses from people claiming to be anything. But if you read the Reformed theologeons, the Puritans, the Church Fathers, top apologists, the BIBLE, you'll see tremendous unity. Your main problem is evaluating something based on hearsay and not on the text. Go read the text for a few years, studying it appropriately, and it's not hard to discern what it says.

Further, I've traveled the world and met Christians from dozens of different countries. Of those who claim the Bible is true, I've found them in agreement on all major issues bar none, over 18 years or so. You're sitting on a gambling forum wondering why people disagree--it's a GAMBLING forum. Now that is funny.

I don't know a %, nor can anyone, but of the people who claim that name and who actually are in accordance to the Bible, it's probably near that %. All that means is that people don't read the Bible for themselves-like you don't.

I would agree with this.

Yes-there are a bunch of different religions parading under the name of Christianity. When I reference it, I refer to biblical Christianity, historically that of the Reformed faith, of the Protestant Reformation, the Puritans, etc. I've studied from the time of Christ through today, and I follow the lineage that reflects the biblical gospel. Others may choose not to do so, but of what I claim, it is verifiable if you read my sources; it's not under debate as to the writings of those I follow. And if you study the substance of the Pauline epistles and the gospels, it's also plain they were in that camp. We can do so if you'd like--just PM. I can read all of those books I mentioned (Paul and Matt./Mark/Luke/John) in 4 hours, so we can go through it in a week decently covering topics.

Yes, unless you actually read and study the Bible. I agree.

His is not an uncommon experience; I've talked with people just like him for 12 or so years, and I was also very much like him in many ways. You don't have to believe that, but his is a very good synopsis of my own thinking over many, many years. That's why I like that series so much.

Btw, 10 minutes x 10 sections is 100 minute synopsis.