> Of course Christians are entitled to define Christianity, but you can't present God as a fact (or assumption) to someone who hasn't already accepted God's existence and expect the next thing you say to be persuasive.

I wouldn't have gone in that direction if knivetsil had said, "I've always been a atheist! Disagree with me!" But the fact is that at one time he professed to be a Christian but now does not. If one is to *have been* a Christian as Christianity defines itself, this isn't technically possible. That leaves one of two possible explanations, which I presented in turn, both of which logically follow. I still think this was a reasonable course to take, given that the subject inherently involves not only how he sees himself now but how he did before, and particularly since, I reiterate, I was not trying to prove or be persuasive about anything except, ultimately, to continue this exploration of the subject and how that might be best done. My job, both as a Christian and as an answerer to knivetsil's call, was to report my perspective. I did that in a post that included logical arguments but which was not as a whole an argument at all, and it's up to him to evaluate it.

Stephen's right -- you can't persuade someone to be a Christian, or, indeed, to adopt any religion or philosophy. I have therefore, I hope, learned not to try. Christianity is notorious for its call to evangelize, but the call is to be a witness for Christ, not a lawyer. I prefer it that way. My job is to report about my faith, what I've experienced as a Christian, and how whatever spiritual situation at hand fits in with that, and leave it up to the listeners to evaluate. I'd have thought said listeners would prefer the respect that one's own decisions are one's own to the pretense that a logical argument will change personal spiritual choices, but mistaking testimony for a poor argument is not uncommon.

Admittedly, some try to use testimony as argument, but that's neither here nor there.