• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ex-Christians: How do current Christians treat you?

PureX

Veteran Member
I still have some friends who are Christian, and those that know have treated me in different ways. One, a very dear friend, does not treat me any differently. Another is civil yet very cool, and I don't mean she's hip. Many others don't know, but I don't see them often, so I haven't mentioned it. I still bow my head when they pray over meals, etc. Yeah, I go along to get along. I don't want to be treated differently. What about you?
I rarely know who is a Christian and who isn't. Let alone who is a "current" Christian and who isn't. I don't even know which I am, since I am not a religious, but rather a philosophical/agnostic Christian. So I think your question implies a lot of bias in it's asking, as it seems to presuppose that all Christians are outspoken and religious.
 

rocala

Well-Known Member
I no longer know any practicing Christians so it is not an issue. A few years ago I signed up for an online course, it was set up by Roman Catholics but open to all. There was an "Introduce Yourself" section in the members area. My post was virtually ignored while Christians were giving each other warm welcomes.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Then they were not truly Christian but Christian in name only.

The "No True Scotsman" defense is a logical fallacy and a very weak argument because it dismisses a Christian's immoral behavior by claiming the person was never a "real Christian" in the first place. Now that I am no longer a Christian, I refuse to be lectured about "sin" by Christians, who are just as guilty as anyone else for disobeying the biblical commandments. Christians are not more moral than people who are not Christians, despite what most Christians seem to think. In fact, most Christians behave exactly the same as the non-Christians they pompously judge and lecture about "sinning against God."

Christians, like everyone else, lie, steal, covet, lust, commit adultery, commit crimes, divorce, and remarry. They have a reputation for being rude and obnoxious to people they dislike, such as other Christians who attend a different church, people who practice another religion or aren't religious, and people who hold opposing political views. Furthermore, many Christians clearly harbor personal prejudices against people they dislike, such as LGBTQ+ people and, in some cases, undocumented immigrants. Also, many Christians continue to oppose LGBTQ+ equality as well as a woman's right to control her own body concerning pregnancy. Finally, Christians have a history of deliberately discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.
 

anna.

but mostly it's the same
The "No True Scotsman" defense is a logical fallacy and a very weak argument because it dismisses a Christian's immoral behavior by claiming the person was never a "real Christian" in the first place.

I'm a Christian (Catholic) who's wavered for the past decade but I'm with you 100% on this. I've argued many times over the years with those who use the "no true Christian" fallacy and won't accept it as a valid argument.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm a Christian (Catholic) who's wavered for the past decade but I'm with you 100% on this. I've argued many times over the years with those who use the "no true Christian" fallacy and won't accept it as a valid argument.
But it is a valid argument. People do mislabel themselves all the time, intentionally and unintentionally. So to claim that "X" is not truly a "Scotsman" or whatever else, as they claim, is often a true and significant point. It's labeling this objection a 'fallacy' that is the actual fallacy.
 
Last edited:

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
I think the only people I talk to that are Christians on a regular basis is my dad and his wife, and my kids' speech therapist. I get on with them all fine.

I guess it took dad a long time to adjust, but he had a lot of things he needed to work on in general.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I rarely know who is a Christian and who isn't. Let alone who is a "current" Christian and who isn't. I don't even know which I am, since I am not a religious, but rather a philosophical/agnostic Christian. So I think your question implies a lot of bias in it's asking, as it seems to presuppose that all Christians are outspoken and religious.
Well, most of my experience is with fellow church members, with whom I have had close contact with, saw weekly, Bible studied with, prayed with, etc. Of course no one but them knows for sure, but if they weren't, they sure put a lot of effort into it.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I rarely know who is a Christian and who isn't. Let alone who is a "current" Christian and who isn't. I don't even know which I am, since I am not a religious, but rather a philosophical/agnostic Christian. So I think your question implies a lot of bias in it's asking, as it seems to presuppose that all Christians are outspoken and religious.

If someone identifies themselves as Christian, I generally take them at their word. Same with any other (ir)religious identifier. That just strikes me as common sense, unless I have a reason to believe they're lying or something.
 

anna.

but mostly it's the same
But it is a valid argument. People do mislabel themselves all the time, intentionally and unintentionally. So to claim that "X" is not truly a "Scotsman" or whatever else, as they claim, is often a true and significant point. It's labeling this objection a 'fallacy' that is the actual fallacy.

PureX, I don’t have the right to tell someone they’re not a true Christian or they were never a Christian I might say I don’t think they’re acting like a Christian, but as others have said here, if someone says they’re a Christian, I take them at that.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Really, and who can judge who is and isn't Christian?

My experience tells me they were true Christian. Excuses don't count
My religion teaches me that a true believer will be known by his deeds. And also in the Bible it says a good tree does not bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree does not bring forth good fruit. A name is just a label. Our deeds define who we really are.

The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í. An ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
This is a logical fallacy known as "No true Scotsman." Look it up.
Religion teaches certain standards. One who embraces a belief agrees to uphold that standard and is faithful to it. But there are those who do not live up to the standard. The differentiation is necessary so that bad behaviour by a religionist is not unjustly generalised to include all religionists. For example one terrorist attack does not mean Islam is a violent religion or all Muslims are terrorists. Without justice being applied millions of innocent people stand falsely accused and prejudiced against due to over generalisations.

A true Christian does exist just as an unfaithful one does and both should be judged on their individual merits not some sweeping generalisation.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Religion teaches certain standards. One who embraces a belief agrees to uphold that standard and is faithful to it. But there are those who do not live up to the standard. The differentiation is necessary so that bad behaviour by a religionist is not unjustly generalised to include all religionists. For example one terrorist attack does not mean Islam is a violent religion or all Muslims are terrorists. Without justice being applied millions of innocent people stand falsely accused and prejudiced against due to over generalisations.

A true Christian does exist just as an unfaithful one does and both should be judged on their individual merits not some sweeping generalisation.
Did you look up the fallacy and read up on it? Here is is, for your convenience:
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
The "No True Scotsman" defense is a logical fallacy and a very weak argument because it dismisses a Christian's immoral behavior by claiming the person was never a "real Christian" in the first place. Now that I am no longer a Christian, I refuse to be lectured about "sin" by Christians, who are just as guilty as anyone else for disobeying the biblical commandments. Christians are not more moral than people who are not Christians, despite what most Christians seem to think. In fact, most Christians behave exactly the same as the non-Christians they pompously judge and lecture about "sinning against God."

Christians, like everyone else, lie, steal, covet, lust, commit adultery, commit crimes, divorce, and remarry. They have a reputation for being rude and obnoxious to people they dislike, such as other Christians who attend a different church, people who practice another religion or aren't religious, and people who hold opposing political views. Furthermore, many Christians clearly harbor personal prejudices against people they dislike, such as LGBTQ+ people and, in some cases, undocumented immigrants. Also, many Christians continue to oppose LGBTQ+ equality as well as a woman's right to control her own body concerning pregnancy. Finally, Christians have a history of deliberately discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.
Our deeds not our words define us.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
If I'm being completely honest, even with nice Christians there's always going to be tension there because I know they believe in a book that praises my eternal torture as just and demands my subjugation.

Even if they downplay or dismiss those teachings, there's not really a single Christian that I've known who hasn't tried to pressure me (aggressively or passive-aggressively) into following Christian ethics and defended abusers. There's just too much conflict between the way I live my life and any mainstream Christian worldview, even liberal Christianity.

I don't expect there to be no conflict, either. We are in ideological conflict. We can get along by politely avoiding the topic as much as we can, but their worldview is incompatible with my lifestyle so there isn't much room for going beyond that. Mainstream Christianity is simply too far removed from where I sit ideologically.

In theory, there should be plenty of Christian heretics and nominal Christians out there who I can get along with just fine, but all of my closest associates share my disdain for the Christian religion as an extension of the fact that I'm closer to people who share my values.

It's not like all Christians are malicious bigots out to preach and evangelize at me. It's just that we're never going to see eye-to-eye on anything because we're too fundamentally different in how we reason and what we value, so our relationships can only go so far before inevitably clashing.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Our deeds not our words define us.

In my opinion, if the words spoken by a Christian or another Abrahamic theist who believes the Bible aren't important and don't define them, then the Bible wouldn't have instructions about not letting any unwholesome words come out of your mouth (Ephesians 4:29; 5:3–7; Colossians 3:8), to tame the tongue (James 3:1–12; specifically verses 9–12), because the tongue has power over life and death (Proverbs 18:21. Furthermore, the Bible states that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34–35; Luke 6:45) and warns that everyone will be held accountable on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken, and by their words, they can be condemned (Matthew 12:36–37). While people can be defined by their actions, they can also be defined by the words they speak, both of which bear fruit in their lives (Matthew 7:16-20). The Bible also states, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). If the words spoken by an Abrahamic theist (Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Baháʼí) are perverse, profane or hateful, then how do their words glorify God? I've always thought that Christians can either be a blessing in someone else's life and draw them closer to God, or they can be a stumbling block in someone else's life and push them even further away from God.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
PureX, I don’t have the right to tell someone they’re not a true Christian or they were never a Christian I might say I don’t think they’re acting like a Christian, but as others have said here, if someone says they’re a Christian, I take them at that.
If I say I am an alien from another planet, do you have to take my word for it? The accuracy of our labels matter, or they become meaningless. We have the right to impose that accuracy for the sake of communication, (honesty and clarity) if not for the sake of truth.
 

anna.

but mostly it's the same
If I say I am an alien from another planet, do you have to take my word for it? The accuracy of our labels matter, or they become meaningless. We have the right to impose that accuracy for the sake of communication, (honesty and clarity) if not for the sake of truth.

How did you acquire the right to impose the accuracy of another's interior faith beliefs?
 
Top