panelarrow

Sudden Death: Defriending

| 39 Comments

NASHVILLE, Tenn (Reuters) – A Tennessee couple who “defriended” a woman on Facebook were murdered in their home by the jilted woman’s father and another man, police said on Thursday.

“It’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen,” Johnson County Sheriff Mike Reece said, adding he had never seen anything like it in his 27 years in law enforcement in the area. “We’ve had murders, but nothing like this. This is just senseless.” Read the rest here.

39 Comments

  1. “You know not the day or the hour.” Are you ready?

    • There is no evidence that “once yer dead, it’s over”. Absolutely none.

    • There is no evidence that “once yer dead, it’s over”. Absolutely none.

      Actually, there is evidence of that.

      For example, brain scans of dead people. Or the fact that there’s no way to communicate with anyone who might not be “over”. Or the fact that everything we understand about “life” is gone when the person/animal/plant dies.

      So, yes, there is evidence to support the claim “once yer dead, it’s over”.

    • There is No evidence that there is No afterlife. If there was evidence then there would be no debate.

    • carl,

      One cannot prove with reasonable conclusion the non-existence of something that cannot be physically defined. However, in all of science and logic, the default position is ‘false until proven true’, not the other way around. Otherwise, we would have absolutely no knowledge base because facts would be contradicted against non-facts (because they’re assumed to be true).

    • “In all of science and logic, the default position is ‘false until proven true’, not the other way around.”

      If that was true there would be no scientific theory not to mention a lot of unemployed scientists.

    • I’m too skeptical and rational to believe that there is no afterlife.

    • “If that was true there would be no scientific theory not to mention a lot of unemployed scientists.”

      carl, I’m not sure if you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand or if you just read fast and went for the easy quip.

      Default position = many employed scientists gathering evidence, running experiments in efforts to determine the validity of a claim (Is this safer? Does this really help? Is there water on Mars? Is there a mechanism that determines heredity?)

      If we all assumed things were true without evidence, we wouldn’t have a reason to hire the many scientists to prove what we think we already know. We also would be a much more ignorant and credulous society.

    • After this I’ll hand carl a cup of gatorade… mental gymnastics and moving goal posts can be really exhausting.

    • I can see your point perdita.

  2. Jim:
    You never did reply to my post in Sudden death – mid flight. Please take a look; we need more dialog on the subject of your prior Christianity!

    • Yes it is! Please engage me in discussion; not arguement!

    • Jim it relevant for our research…

      🙂

    • I agree with Jim here. It really isn’t relevant. He claims he was a Christian for 20+ years. You disagree.

      Now what? Are you two going to argue about who was right? No, because you won’t change your mind, and he can’t replace his memories that show he was.

    • Hi Steve L.,

      I know you asked this question to Jim, but I hope you don’t mind if I throw my two cents in.

      You never were a true Christian!

      This depends on what exactly you mean by “true Christian”, and in fact Jim never used the word “true” as an adjective for “Christian”. I can tell you that I, when I was a Christian, certainly believed and had faith that I was a “true Christian”. My guess is that Jim was the same.

      If you define “Christian” as “someone who believes and has faith that Jesus Christ is their Savior”, then I was a Christian.

      Therefore, I’m not clear on what “you weren’t a true Christian” is supposed to accomplish, because it doesn’t persuade me and is kind of an insult to my own personal history.

      That time in my life existed. You can define “true Christian” so it doesn’t include me, but I don’t feel obligated to use your definition.

      Possibly one who “tried Jesus” but not a committed follower!

      “Possibly”, huh. Why would this be your first guess?

      As I’ve mentioned before, I got into evangelism by choice. I didn’t fear going out and spreading the word, even if I looked silly in the process.

      Therefore, I claim that I was a committed follower, and I don’t know anyone (well, except for hippies) that “try Jesus”.

      I didn’t “try Jesus”. I believed that he was my Savior. Deliverence from my sins. God’s great mercy.

      I didn’t just “try Jesus”.

      A true believer is someone who holds onto Christ regardless of the hardships in their life and never let’s go!

      I didn’t lose my faith due to any hardships, and I don’t know many nonbelievers who have (although I do know a couple, but they later found better reasons). I lost my faith primarily because there came a point when it was very important to me that my beliefs matched reality. That coincided with my own (and in groups) study of the Bible.

      The biggest hardships I’ve had in life have all come after I lost my faith, but even then any starving and/or diseased child would scoff at descriptions of my own “hardships”.

      Up until the point that my loss of faith began, I held on to Christ and didn’t let go.

      Christian conversion is the act or process of being changed (without coercion but through our own volition) into a person who believes and treasures Jesus Christ,

      You can say that the spiritual change didn’t “really happen”, and hence I never was a “true” Christian, but I certainly believed and treasured Jesus Christ.

      his saving work,

      Absolutely; that too.

      and his promises above everything else.

      Agreed. Well, until it became more important that my beliefs matched reality. So, that’s when I guess I broke the “above everything else” part.

      I trust these words will have a measure of meaning in your life!

      Unfortunately, probably not. I still appreciate that you wrote them, and hopefully you won’t jump to negative conclusions (e.g., “tried Jesus”) next time you talk with a nonbeliever.

    • That’s only because we take what Scripture says as the ultimate arbiter of truth. “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” 1 John 2:19

      Enough of this nonsense about being a Christian. You never were.

    • Hey Steve
      Why don’t you put those verses you’ve quoted into their historical context?

    • That’s all well and fine, Steve. But you can’t say that those that went out weren’t sincere in their beliefs. And that’s what I really want all of you to understand.

      You can say I was never a Christian.

      But you can’t say that I didn’t believe I really was one – because I truly believed.

      You can’t say that I was just ‘trying it on’ – because I was sincere and again, truly, truly, believed I was a follower of Christ.

      As Nohm said, it wasn’t hardship or trials or any difficulty in my life that caused my ultimate disbelief. “I lost my faith primarily because there came a point when it was very important to me that my beliefs matched reality.” This.

      I realized that I treasured something more than Jesus. I treasured truth. You think Scripture is the ultimate arbiter of truth, but I realized, ultimately, that Scripture was from man and not divine and that belief in Jesus was no more real than belief in any other gods.

  3. One can never me too careful when dealing with people on the internet.

  4. Jim, perdita, and all the others who thought they were Christians at some point.

    I believe that you thought you were Christians, sincere Christians. But the proof is in the pudding, or perseverance. Jesus said that he who perseveres to the end will be saved. Paul says that those who continue to the end will be saved. John writes, again, (pat attention please): “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” 1 John 2:19

    Also, John 1:9—
    Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

    This means that since you are no longer a Christian, you never were a Christian. How do you know that you are a Christian? You continue to “walk as He walked.”

    Thanks for allowing me to clear this up. It’s not my arrogance, it’s the Bible’s.

    • Steve wrote:

      Jesus said that he who perseveres to the end will be saved. Paul says that those who continue to the end will be saved.

      I don’t think any of us nonbelievers were claiming that we are or will be saved. I know that I certainly wasn’t. I understand that, if your beliefs are correct, and I die tomorrow, that I’m going to The Hot Place.

      Steve wrote:

      Also, John 1:9—
      Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

      To me, that doesn’t seem to say what you think it says. To me, that appears to say that someone who is no longer a Christian does not have God with them any more (assuming, for the sake of discussion, that God exists).

      1 John 2:19 makes your point much better, I think, but I don’t think that’s what we’re saying.

      We all realize that we were never “true Christians” because, to us, there is no such thing. Since I believe that the claims of Christianity are not real, it would be impossible to ever be a “true Christian”.

      I think our whole point (well, I know MY whole point) is that saying “you never were a Christian” is playing with semantics that only one side of the discussion even acknowledges; the other side (i.e., us nonbelievers) feels no obligation to use your specific definitions.

      Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to call UCC people “Christians”, right? Yet, I do.

    • I honestly don’t mind that you believe I was never a True Christian. (One of the many differences between those that consider themselves true Christians and others that, well also consider themselves true Christians, is if ex-Christians can actually exits. Folks on both sides of the question believe they have Biblical support.)

      It’s only when believers make believe that I wasn’t sincere, or that I was just trying it out like a fad, or that I became mad at God, or other silly notions, that I take issue.

    • Great job Steve; I rest your case!!

      • What you mean to say to Jim is “heads I win, tails you lose” right?

        This is a non conversation, which is exactly why Jim said it was pointless bringing it up.

        I hate hypocrisy. You should too, The Jesus figure in your holy book hated hypocrisy too. So then by your own standards I’ll call you out as being no true Christian:

        “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7:24

        But you cannot tell who among the Christians here are righteous, or merely appearing that way:

        There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins. (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

      • I’d be interested to hear your opinions on this, Steve L., since you were the one who originally was wanting to hear this information.

  5. Chris,

    Tell you what. You do an historical context study, inform me of what you find, then let’s see if we can draw an appropriate application concerning unbelievers and mockers and fools and sinners and backsliders—and how they are dealt with by the Living God.

    Thanks!

    • Fact is you don’t know the historical context of those verses do you Steve?

      But even though you don’t know the historical context of those verses you still believe you know exactly what they mean. Face it Steve, you worship your own ego that’s why you can’t admit that you’re wrong. Oh and to quote you “enough of this nonsense about being a Christian. You never were.”

    • Shorter Steve: No, I will not put it into historical context ’cause that invalidates my point.

  6. Come on guys, I’ve never read such double speak in all my life! The verse in John (They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 1 John 2:19 ESV) is directly related to our topic of discussion and really points to what must be considered as a false conversion.
    Nohm, I appreciate your critique, but please understand, all I did was to show the path that a truly converted person will follow. And no, I Didn’t ” jump to negative conclusions” nor will I in the future. It’s mandatory that the word of God be taken at face value or not at all! Ultimately “The just shall live by faith!”

    • Unfortunately for the non-truly converted, there’s no way for them to tell they aren’t truly converted while they are believers.

      Assuming for the sake of argument that your beliefs are real, if I had died while I was still a believer, I would have gone to Hell because unbeknownst to me at the time, I wasn’t really truly converted. While I believed, there was nothing to indicate that I wasn’t one of the saved. How many people, do you suppose, are in your church that believe they are truly converted but really aren’t?

  7. Come on Steve L.
    I’ve never read such an attempt to drag a red herring into the discussion in my life.

    I claimed that neither Steve, not you for that matter, know the historical context of the verses that have been cited. That being the case you have no idea what those verses are referring too. In fact if you checked up non the historical context, as I have, you’d realise they have NOTHING to do with what Steve is claiming.

    Why Won’t you just admit that you were mistaken SteveL? Is it because, just like Steve, you worship not Christ but your own ego? Then to quote Steve “enough of this nonsense about being a Christian. You never were.”

  8. Gentleman:
    Please read these words from commentator John Gill (1697 – 1771) 1Jn. 2:19 b,
    but they were not of us: “they were of the church, and of the same mind with it, at least in profession, antecedent to their going out; for had they not been in communion with the church, they could not be properly said to go out of it; and if they had not been of the same mind and faith in profession, they could not be said to depart from it; but they were not truly regenerated by the grace of God, and so apparently were not of the number, of God’s elect: notwithstanding their profession and communion with the church, they were of the world, and not of God; they were not true believers; they had not that anointing which abides, and from which persons are truly denominated Christians, or anointed ones.”

    Nuff said!

    • Sorry Steve but it’s not “Nuff said”.

      Why did you cut the quote out half way steve? Could it be because you found out, like I di, that the quote refers tyo Gnostics? The Gnostics were leaving the church and John was writing that they were never a part of it to begin with.

      It has NOTHING to do with your point. You little ego worshipper you.

      Why did you try and hide the truth Steve? Why did you try and decieve your readers? Could it be that you just couldn’t get yourself to admit you were wrong? You old ego worshipper you. To quote you ““enough of this nonsense about being a Christian. You never were.”

      • Yep the Gnostics left. They were never part of the church. The atheists left. They were never part of the church. So… what’s the issue? Is there no current application for today. Of course there is; that’s why I used the quote.

        Thanks for trying to straighten me out though.

      • Steve why not just admit you were wrong? Is your devotion to your ego worship so strong?

        The fact is the Gnostics were not orthodox christians. They left because of theological differences. They were Gnostics when they were in the church and Gnostics when they left.

        There are NO theological similarities between Gnostics and atheists.

        People who have lost their faith have a tiotally different reason for leaving. They, at one time agreed completely with orthodox Christianity. Now they don’t. Guess you’re still missing the point Steve.

        I’ve got a revolutionary idea. Instead of telling people why they left why not ask them? And actually listen to the answer?

  9. Guarantee you the people depicted this article were Christians. Granted that is pure speculation but odds are I’m correct.

  10. My goodness. The Steves are actually promoting a Biblical application of the “no true Scotsman” argument. Literally.

    Because there are only ever two positions in any argument. Black, and white. You’re with us, or you’re against us. You’re a True Christian, or you’ll be burning in a lake of fire for eternity.

    I’m not sure whether this is ironic, or just sad.

    • It’s even worse than that NC.

      According to Steve he uses his baise against former believers to interpret the verse he quoted & he uses the verse he quoted to support his biase.

      In other words his came first, then he uses it to interpret scripture & then claims it’s the other way around.

      Talk about twisting scripture to his own destruction.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.