Spiritual Yard Sale

Originally posted by sumydid
The statement is not erroneous, and is Scripturally supported. Obviously there is an infinite distance between proclaiming one self to be Christian and actually being a Christian. But please, let us discuss the more important things. Out of all I said in my post, you plucked out that little piece and now want to debate with a fellow believer about seconda ...[text shortened]... one day that it iss all hogwash. Are you saying you believe this to be a distinct possibility?

It is erroneous and cannot be established scripturally, clearly many were christians
in the first century and yet exchanged the truth for the lie.

(Romans 1:25) even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie . . .

(Romans 1:32) Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that
those practising such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing
them but also consent with those practising them.

now isn't that quite interesting, clearly some knew the truth of God and yet, for
various reasons, exchanged that truth, for a lie. What is more the apostle states
clearly that despite the fact of knowing the truth of God, they simply abandon it for
some other practice. How can this idea of once a Christian, always a Christian stand
under this scrutiny? It cannot and I myself have found not the slightest evidence for
it scripturally, so from where does it come?

was not Judas Iscariot a disciple of the Christ? One of his chosen twelve, yet he
abandoned the faith for some other reason, exchanging the truth for the lie? How
will you explain the idea of once a Christian always a Christian in that context? it
appears to me that it cannot be done, Judas was a Christian, Christ trusted him
enough to put him in charge of monetary contributions and yet he let
unrighteousness come between him and the Christ so that he no longer qualified as
being a Christian.

Originally posted by sumydid
Knowing that you are very smart, which is obvious; I am baffled by the fact that you don't see the logical fallacy in claiming to have had a relationship with a being you don't believe in.

at what point in a childs life does jesus start having a relationship with them?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then clearly i am correct, our official stance is that its not considered inspired, but so what?

So it's galveton's claim that is incorrect?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So it's galveton's claim that is incorrect?

Its possible he has made a mistake although its hard to tell what he actually meant,
clearly he was talking of the writers being inspired, which they may very well be as
they can also be recipients of Holy spirit, but the magazine itself is not considered
inspired.

I gotta do some work for my mom, will be gone most of the day.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its possible he has made a mistake although its hard to tell what he actually meant,
clearly he was talking of the writers being inspired, which they may very well be as
they can also be recipients of Holy spirit, but the magazine itself is not considered
inspired.

I gotta do some work for my mom, will be gone most of the day.

Someone is obviously mistaken, the question is who?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Someone is obviously mistaken, the question is who?

so we make mistakes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is erroneous and cannot be established scripturally, clearly many were christians
in the first century and yet exchanged the truth for the lie.

(Romans 1:25) even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie . . .

(Romans 1:32) Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that
those practising such things are deservin eousness come between him and the Christ so that he no longer qualified as
being a Christian.

The verses you cited do not say that people who are in the boby of Christ, full-fledged believers--exchanged the truth for a lie.

The bible speaks of people who KNOW the truth, i.e. they learn it and hear it from teachers, yet REJECT it.

For example, the Atheists in this forum. They are the ones that are subject to the verses in your examples. Not bona fide believers and followers of Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is simply untrue and cannot be established scripturally.

Its simple, did you or do you have a relationship with God in Jesus Christ,
will Jesus say I never knew you? If you had one, you cannot then say didn't
unless your lie, if you never had one, than saying you walked away from it is a
lie. Not sure how you can say anything else, Jesus claims to know His own.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How anyone can claim to have a relationship with an ancient Jewish Zombie is utterly beyond me?! 😕

I get that, right now it is beyond you, but does not have to be. Minus the
Zombie part.
Kelly

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think you are reading more in to the question than is there. im simply asking if you think a person can know jesus or enter a relationship with jesus or however you want to word it and then at a later date decide they do not believe in jesus.

you seem to be saying that if any person decides they no longer believe in god/jesus , that they never really knew jesus/god or had a relationship with him or however you prefer to word it.

No, I don't believe you can have a relationship with God and not know it, and
I don't think you can have a relationship with God and than deny it later. I do
think you can make a lot of claims, but that doesn't mean that the truth is in
the claims.
Kelly

Originally posted by FMF
I disagree. What KellyJay appears to be arguing is that one cannot stop believing something, or that if one stops believing something that somehow did not believe it before one stopped, which - in terms of "logical truth" - seems to me to sheer nonsense.

No that is not what I'm saying, you can without a doubt stop believing in what
ever you wish. You cannot have a relationship with God in Christ where you "get
saved" and that is a meaningless event if its real, God either comes into your
life, or you just making meaningless claims and taking no father than that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
...God either comes into your
life, or you just making meaningless claims and taking no father than that.

This is not the choice. No "meaningless claims" on my part here. You seem to have a severely limited understanding of what other people might or might not experience based purely on what you feel or think about yourself.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't think you can have a relationship with God and than deny it later. I do think you can make a lot of claims, but that doesn't mean that the truth is in the claims.

No amount of questioning the truthfulness of someone else's revelations about themselves is going to disguise the fact that the issue for you seems to be that if it does not coincide with your own experience or understanding then it is a "lie".

Originally posted by FMF
This is not the choice. No "meaningless claims" on my part here. You seem to have a severely limited understanding of what other people might or might not experience based purely on what you feel or think about yourself.

No, its basically this did you have a relationship with God in Jesus Christ or
were you just playing church making claims that you now admit were not
real? You and anyone else can claim to be whatever you want, I asked you
before what was so profound that could turn one from God in Christ, still
waiting on that answer.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Its simple, did you or do you have a relationship with God in Jesus Christ, will Jesus say I never knew you? If you had one, you cannot then say didn't unless your lie, if you never had one, than saying you walked away from it is a lie.

Just saying someone who has had a different experience from you is "lying" or that one "cannot say" something that is different from your understanding or different from what you have experienced doesn't really work.