Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 03-05-2002, 12:25 PM

doc58:

Your story sounds very much like mine (other than I'm an ex-Assembly of God/Presbyterian/Episcopal). How long since your "deconversion?" Mine's going on two years. Fortunately, it gets easier as time goes by.

However, knowing what I know now (esp. from spending time on this board) I know that I can never go back to xianity. In no shape, form or fashion does it make any sense.

I like living morally and with integrity.

Except perhaps this one (if only most xians actually lived this way). And guess what? You don't need to be a xian to live morally and with integrity. I'm beginning to think it helps not being a xian. You can evaluate right and wrong in a situation without having to revert to a 2000-year-old goatherder's manual. "What should I do?" rather than "What would Jesus do?"

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

HelenM · 03-05-2002, 12:56 PM

Thanks for sharing doc58; I really appreciate it.

love
Helen

doc58 · 03-05-2002, 06:10 PM

Mageth,
I am nearing the one year mark of my deconversion.
Now that I have deconverted I am much more aware of non-Christians who live moral lives. So I agree with you that being a Christian or non-Christian has little relevance as far as morality.

Helen, Thanks for the note. I enjoyed reading it.

One thing I am thankful for is the access the internet gives me in finding people with similar stories to mine. I would never have thought that there are so many people who were genuine, believing, committed Christians who now no longer believe.

gregw · 03-05-2002, 06:11 PM

I thought that the original article was most excellent!

I have always wondered how anyone could believe that this or that belief was the only way to Heaven. Not only is it not at all clear in the Bible how one may attain Salvation, but it is not at all clear to me, and countless others, that the Bible is actually the inspired 'Word of God.' That's the real (excuse me) fundamental belief here. Christians are convinced that *their* book is the true one, Muslims think *theirs* is, Buddhists don't have a book, etc. Even if one can get past the doubts about the divinity of the Bible, one must then contend with the unclear teachings therein. I think I like this idea better: <a href="http://jhuger.com/tract/dtr/index.mv" target="_blank">http://jhuger.com/tract/dtr/index.mv</A>

Echo, I totally agree with your statement "So how do we determine which one is right?" Each faith passionately believes that theirs is the right one and that everyone else is wrong, perhaps deadly, or eternally, wrong. For every verse seeming to require faith for salvation, another seems to require works, or grace alone, or...
I think the <a href="http://jhuger.com/" target="_blank">Computer Analogy</a> says it all!

A group which is not listed in the article, and with whom I often have discussions, are the 'Bible Christians.' They seem to be 'none of the above' when it comes to putting themselves in a group or sect. They only adhere to the Bible, and usually come up with the "faith alone" viewpoint. Some can be found at <a href="http://alliedconservatives.com/" target="_blank">http://alliedconservatives.com/</A> formerly 'unitedconservatives.com.' I don't know why they changed their name. They have a new forum called "Faith and Religion in America." Whereas I usually lurk here at infidels (since I often agree with what is posted and have nothing to add) I post there because I am in the minority...much as a theist is here. Rather interesting, actually.

As for me: I see parts of the Bible as inspirational, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the Good Samaritan story and the Golden Rule. I also take inspiration from other sources such as the Tao, Cosmos and the jhuger site. The God in whom I (sorta) believe doesn't really mind this at all. The God in the Chick tract parody at the jhuger site said that we are here to "Learn and Grow as [people.]" Sounds good to me. If Christians and Muslims want a "psychopatic egomanic" to worship, well, more power to 'em.

svensky · 03-05-2002, 07:56 PM

Quote:

So how do we determine which one is right? The only criteria you've given us is to read the bible and pick which one fits it. For some reason, you seem to think that all the sects and denominations that you've discounted *don't* do that. Has a Jehovah's Witness ever visited your house, Jason? If not, you might try inviting one over one day. The first thing you'll notice is that he'll shove the bible in your face and start showing you all the places where the bible agrees with *him* and not *you* and if you'd just remove the scales from your eyes you'd plainly see it.

Firstly I would ask, have you actually looked at JW theology ?

But secondly, I have had JW's, and mormons come a knocking at my door, and i have talked to them.

My point was not to discard all the groups I disagree with, I didn't completely agree with a number of the groups I did not take exception with (why does nobody notice this, I think I have mentioned it a couple of times).

My point was there are groups included that are generally regarded as cultic and fringe loonies, why not add the christadelphians, the branch davidians and the KKK to the list. They all use the bible, and claim all manner of things from it.

I would have thought they would be obvious pseudo christian groups to add. They are at least as in line with biblical teaching as the JW's or mormons, and closer than the FCJCS.

Jason

HelenM · 03-06-2002, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by doc58:
Helen, Thanks for the note. I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks

One thing I am thankful for is the access the internet gives me in finding people with similar stories to mine. I would never have thought that there are so many people who were genuine, believing, committed Christians who now no longer believe.

I am very thankful for how the Internet has enabled people to be 'less alone' who have trouble finding people locally to them, who are in their specific circumstance/situation/have their specific issue to deal with.

I think that's one of its strengths. It's a shame that we live in a world where people tend not to be very good at understanding someone else unless they have been through the exact same thing. Or, rather, it's not simply that they are not good at understanding, but the mistaken conclusions they come to when they can't understand what someone else is going through.

As long as the world continues to be this way, I think there is great value in any resource that helps people find others 'like them'.

Btw another thing I like is that when you can't see and hear the other people, you are less hindered by whether they are fat, thin, tall, short, old, young, black, brown, yellow or white...ah but I am forgetting - there is a photo gallery here...darn it

. Actually I like to see what people look like - although I suppose one is trusting them to be posting real photos of themselves...

In any case, enjoy your freedom

love
Helen

Echo · 03-06-2002, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:

Firstly I would ask, have you actually looked at JW theology ?

Yes, I have looked at JW theology- with a critical eye, just as you apparently have. And I have reached the same conclusion about JW theology as I have about yours. But that is irrelevant because the point was not what *I* think about JW theology but whether JWs base their theology and view of salvation on the bible. I think it's obvious they do- just not the way *you* do.

Quote:

ondly, I have had JW's, and mormons come a knocking at my door, and i have talked to them.

Good, and you didn't buy their spiel. Kudos to you.

Quote:

was not to discard all the groups I disagree with, I didn't completely agree with a number of the groups I did not take exception with (why does nobody notice this, I think I have mentioned it a couple of times).

My point was there are groups included that are generally regarded as cultic and fringe loonies, why not add the christadelphians, the branch davidians and the KKK to the list. They all use the bible, and claim all manner of things from it.

have thought they would be obvious pseudo christian groups to add. They are at least as in line with biblical teaching as the JW's or mormons, and closer than the FCJCS.

We're never going to get anywhere until we reach some sort of agreement on the very basic qualifications one must possess in order to be considered Christian. Saying "their beliefs must match the bible" isn't going to cut it, as that puts us right back where we started, with questions of whose interpretation is "biblical."

Ron Garrett · 03-06-2002, 02:20 PM

Hi Jason:

I never quite know what to think of you. You seem well-intended. You also seem to be interested in actually being certain of what you know and honest about what you don't from what I've seen. I genuinely want to help you come to a fully informed conclusion about your beliefs and religion, and I think many here feel the same way I do. It's pretty clear you've had the standard indoctrination and not a lot of exposure to the historical reality of the church, systematic theology or in depth comparative religion. I've been there. Ignorance is only a moral fault if you are content with it.

While you don't seem to know a lot about your faith, I grant that you know more than many, which is not a compliment to you, but rather a sad comment on the amount of credence people are willing to give to superstitious beliefs and mythologies about which they know next to nothing and for which they have been provided no actual evidence. Where I think I can be the most help is to suggest some historical research that would disabuse you of your misunderstanding of orthodoxy, what it actually means, how it has come to be understood and determined over the years, and that it is in fact nothing more than a political concensus, arrived at quite separately from any scriptural support. In point of fact, the various doctrines and dogma that form the foundation for the notion of orthodoxy, were not arrived at to explain scripture, but were in fact inventions to cover nebulous areas of theology, Christology, soteriology and pneumatology.

Many of the early church fathers would have been quite comfortable and even intrigued by the doctrines of Christian Science and the Latter Day Saints, both of whom would have been seen as completely orthodox prior to and including the first ecumenical council at Nicaea. You would call the Montanists, Sablellians, Arians, and all such heretics today with the retrospective of centuries of Roman dominance, but at one time they were the true faith and trinitarianism was considered heretical and polytheist by many Christians for years. Only the power of the emperor brought the particular views of the Wetern Church to dominance, but that was a political decision, not an act of god.

I would recommend you study the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers, particularly their "Contra" letters, where they take on those they consider heterodox, heretic and simply enemies of Christianity. Then read up on the first seven ecumenical councils. Read Celsus: On the True Doctrine. Porphyry's: Against the Christians, what little remains. The church burned most of the works of their opponents, but some very instructive pieces remain.

As for the Mormons, I recommend Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianityby Barry Bickmore. Despite his lack of academic credentials as a hisotrian, BIckmore does a fabulous job with early Christian sources to prove that Mormon doctrine was well represented in the writings of earliest years of the church with some of its most notable authorities, and in fact simply lost the political battle, not the Biblical debate. You an order it here:
<a href="http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100010047" target="_blank">Restoring the Ancient Church</a>It's $20, and I guarantee it will leave you thinking twice about what is and isn't genuinely Christian.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2002, 12:25 PM	#41
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	doc58: Your story sounds very much like mine (other than I'm an ex-Assembly of God/Presbyterian/Episcopal). How long since your "deconversion?" Mine's going on two years. Fortunately, it gets easier as time goes by. However, knowing what I know now (esp. from spending time on this board) I know that I can never go back to xianity. In no shape, form or fashion does it make any sense. I like living morally and with integrity. Except perhaps this one (if only most xians actually lived this way). And guess what? You don't need to be a xian to live morally and with integrity. I'm beginning to think it helps not being a xian. You can evaluate right and wrong in a situation without having to revert to a 2000-year-old goatherder's manual. "What should I do?" rather than "What would Jesus do?" [ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

03-05-2002, 12:56 PM	#42
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Thanks for sharing doc58; I really appreciate it. love Helen

03-05-2002, 06:10 PM	#43
doc58 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 101	Mageth, I am nearing the one year mark of my deconversion. Now that I have deconverted I am much more aware of non-Christians who live moral lives. So I agree with you that being a Christian or non-Christian has little relevance as far as morality. Helen, Thanks for the note. I enjoyed reading it. One thing I am thankful for is the access the internet gives me in finding people with similar stories to mine. I would never have thought that there are so many people who were genuine, believing, committed Christians who now no longer believe.

03-05-2002, 06:11 PM	#44
gregw Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Wakefield, MA., USA Posts: 32	I thought that the original article was most excellent! I have always wondered how anyone could believe that this or that belief was the only way to Heaven. Not only is it not at all clear in the Bible how one may attain Salvation, but it is not at all clear to me, and countless others, that the Bible is actually the inspired 'Word of God.' That's the real (excuse me) fundamental belief here. Christians are convinced that their book is the true one, Muslims think theirs is, Buddhists don't have a book, etc. Even if one can get past the doubts about the divinity of the Bible, one must then contend with the unclear teachings therein. I think I like this idea better: <a href="http://jhuger.com/tract/dtr/index.mv" target="_blank">http://jhuger.com/tract/dtr/index.mv</A> Echo, I totally agree with your statement "So how do we determine which one is right?" Each faith passionately believes that theirs is the right one and that everyone else is wrong, perhaps deadly, or eternally, wrong. For every verse seeming to require faith for salvation, another seems to require works, or grace alone, or... I think the <a href="http://jhuger.com/" target="_blank">Computer Analogy</a> says it all! A group which is not listed in the article, and with whom I often have discussions, are the 'Bible Christians.' They seem to be 'none of the above' when it comes to putting themselves in a group or sect. They only adhere to the Bible, and usually come up with the "faith alone" viewpoint. Some can be found at <a href="http://alliedconservatives.com/" target="_blank">http://alliedconservatives.com/</A> formerly 'unitedconservatives.com.' I don't know why they changed their name. They have a new forum called "Faith and Religion in America." Whereas I usually lurk here at infidels (since I often agree with what is posted and have nothing to add) I post there because I am in the minority...much as a theist is here. Rather interesting, actually. As for me: I see parts of the Bible as inspirational, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the Good Samaritan story and the Golden Rule. I also take inspiration from other sources such as the Tao, Cosmos and the jhuger site. The God in whom I (sorta) believe doesn't really mind this at all. The God in the Chick tract parody at the jhuger site said that we are here to "Learn and Grow as [people.]" Sounds good to me. If Christians and Muslims want a "psychopatic egomanic" to worship, well, more power to 'em.

03-06-2002, 02:20 PM	#48
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	Hi Jason: I never quite know what to think of you. You seem well-intended. You also seem to be interested in actually being certain of what you know and honest about what you don't from what I've seen. I genuinely want to help you come to a fully informed conclusion about your beliefs and religion, and I think many here feel the same way I do. It's pretty clear you've had the standard indoctrination and not a lot of exposure to the historical reality of the church, systematic theology or in depth comparative religion. I've been there. Ignorance is only a moral fault if you are content with it. While you don't seem to know a lot about your faith, I grant that you know more than many, which is not a compliment to you, but rather a sad comment on the amount of credence people are willing to give to superstitious beliefs and mythologies about which they know next to nothing and for which they have been provided no actual evidence. Where I think I can be the most help is to suggest some historical research that would disabuse you of your misunderstanding of orthodoxy, what it actually means, how it has come to be understood and determined over the years, and that it is in fact nothing more than a political concensus, arrived at quite separately from any scriptural support. In point of fact, the various doctrines and dogma that form the foundation for the notion of orthodoxy, were not arrived at to explain scripture, but were in fact inventions to cover nebulous areas of theology, Christology, soteriology and pneumatology. Many of the early church fathers would have been quite comfortable and even intrigued by the doctrines of Christian Science and the Latter Day Saints, both of whom would have been seen as completely orthodox prior to and including the first ecumenical council at Nicaea. You would call the Montanists, Sablellians, Arians, and all such heretics today with the retrospective of centuries of Roman dominance, but at one time they were the true faith and trinitarianism was considered heretical and polytheist by many Christians for years. Only the power of the emperor brought the particular views of the Wetern Church to dominance, but that was a political decision, not an act of god. I would recommend you study the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers, particularly their "Contra" letters, where they take on those they consider heterodox, heretic and simply enemies of Christianity. Then read up on the first seven ecumenical councils. Read Celsus: On the True Doctrine. Porphyry's: Against the Christians, what little remains. The church burned most of the works of their opponents, but some very instructive pieces remain. As for the Mormons, I recommend Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianityby Barry Bickmore. Despite his lack of academic credentials as a hisotrian, BIckmore does a fabulous job with early Christian sources to prove that Mormon doctrine was well represented in the writings of earliest years of the church with some of its most notable authorities, and in fact simply lost the political battle, not the Biblical debate. You an order it here: <a href="http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100010047" target="_blank">Restoring the Ancient Church</a>It's $20, and I guarantee it will leave you thinking twice about what is and isn't genuinely Christian. [ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.