Jinksy

I agree, but I don't think anyone except jafosei and QueenofSwords has really addressed the question. It still smacks of hypocrisy to me to condemn Christians for an attitude which we can't confidently say doesn't exist in ourselves. What's more, I don't think we reasonably expected to change the attitude, since I happen to agree that anyone converting to fundamentalism, and virtually everyone converting to any form of organised religion couldn't have fully considered their position in the first place. Though having said that, is it fair to say that not having fully considered a position means you don't truly hold it? Wouldn't that mean we live in a secular world?

But even if we do contend that, to be truly secular* you have to have thought your position through, but apply different conditions to 'true Christians,' I still think our actions, regardless of their bases, are equivalent.

* I tend to avoid the word atheist, since I wouldn't call myself one, strictly speaking.

Lonely_Road_Of_Faith

I'd say you managed to express your own mindset pretty well, as I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I know of a moderator over on Christianity.com forums who claims that he was once a Muslim. Oddly enough, I know enough about Islam, besides knowing numerous Muslims...and a few Christians (as well as an Agnostic) who used to be Muslims...that I was instantly suspicious. None of the "ex-Muslims" that I know bad-mouth their former religion to the degree that this dude does, and in looking seriously at his posts I came to the conclusion that he was a phoney.

Why?

It seems to me that depending on what the "hot button" issues are in a given year, if you visit a Fundy message board there's likely to be several people who at least claim to be "ex" whatever (for example ex-witches, ex-gays, ex-Muslims, ex-atheists, ex-eminem fans etc.) and I've posted on enough CHristian forums over time that I've noticed there is kind of a pattern, because all these people spend a lot of time talking about how eeevil their former religion, or lifestyle, or music preference was.

All things considered, I have a hard time believeing them.

AspenMama

I'm moving this to GRD.
-- AspenMama, SL & PD Moderator

Jeffrey Formosa

Been a Christian was cool when i thought all you to do is obay the big 10 and you get into heaven but when you read the bible you found that Christians are bull and no god like this would be real. The best way to stop been a Christian is to read the bible, TV and the goverment make the Christian belief look easy but it is just about imposabul to get into heaven. How can a belief that is only good if you know little about be a good belief.

Biff the unclean

I think it's interesting that being "Born Again" was how you entered the preChristian Dionysian cult. In fact the name of the 100% man/100% God Dionysus refers to his being born once & again. Once from his human mother and again from God the Father.

Amos

This is easy. Catholics don't preach the born-again method and actually preach against it. Catholics are "the clay" and must arrive at salvation via Mary who is co-redemptrix, and in the normal run of life Catholics would end up in Purgatory and on into heaven. Evangelists know this and know by experience that Catholics are easy targets towards conversion (your "finding the truth") and usually make "good catches" and therefore evangelists love to get their hands on a 'suffering' Catholic who, like Lazarus, is looking for the reign of God. Yes they will claim to have found the truth, leave the church to become fundamentalists.

The "born again" message can be 'administered' with a 'hands-on' evangelisation technique in such a way that it will 'zap' the poor unbeliever (who obviously was hurting) in such a way that he will be 'jumping for Jesus' for the rest of his days. In the philosophy of Catholicism this is called hell and in the normal sequence of events it is the seventh sacrament (making reference to the seventh day of creation when darkness did not follow the day). Note here that the difference between these two constitudes whether it is a divine comedy or a Senecan tragedy but that is not really part of the discussion here.

Catholics, or at least the hierarchy, knows the technique very well because the Jesuits used it in foreing lands where they could act like wolves because they were working in a different flock and therefore not in "sheeps clothing." After they were settled in they would advise against it because, as you can see on this BB, it always backfires and causes turmoil and unbelief (most atheist here are ex-born again believers).

It may be of interest to add here that that is the exact reason why protestant missionaries follow Catholics around and re-convert all the Catholic mission fields into their brand of protestantism. It is a very exciting job for them because it really is like spiritual fornication wherein they remove the spiritual virginity from the believers and shortcut a natural rebirth.

4God

Biff says....


..however if you look at the story.....
http://www.archaeonia.com/religion/cults/dionysian.htm
....also..the "father" did not send this same son to die for the sins of the world. Just to clarify

...with respect to dealing with the topic of this thread...i'm glad i didn't mention it and that it was someone else. I had intended to write as much.

I was mucking around in the internet world, and it seems that "atheists turned Christians" are viewed as never having been atheists. That's a little strange in my opinion. And by atheist I mean a "committed" atheist who claims there is no God. Not, someone who's never researched the subject. Sure, that person is technically an atheist, but so is 99.999999% of the world with that definition, at birth.

I too have seen the counter argument from Christians...that folks were never Christians to begin with. As a Christian, I find this to be a little dubious, although saddening.

Exekiel 3:20 from the Moden KJV

God telling Exekiel to warn the people, for the sake of context. However, here it says that if a righteous man forsakes God he will die in his own sin. Translate that to NT times and I do not think that there is any indication that if one "accepts Christ" and then no longer walks with Christ, that it "counts" for being a Christian. I mean the whole point for Christ was to "reconcile" the world back to God. By "walking away" implies a rejection of that reconciliation. In fact, IMO someone who's never even heard hide--nor-hair of Jesus would be more suitable for heavan. Why? You once "knew" God and then later rejected Him...According to the Bible, it doesn't seem likely that such a person would enter into the kingdom. Again in my opinion.

The point? I think some were actual "christians". Judas Iscariot walked with Jesus for 3 years yet "walked away" from Him. For we who have not seen, it probably takes less than those who were actually there. However, as I said before this is sad, to me.

I don't know why each side has to take this tact towards the other's proponents. It doesn't solve much and imo shows a complete disrespect for a person's reasoning/faith experiences(and conclusions drawn from various evidence presented to them). I can list numerous "formerly committed" atheists and I'm sure many of you can list many "formerly committed" Christians. Does it prove the validity/invalidty of one or the other? Not in my opinion.

Instead, it would seem that the best testimony for either side would be a humility w/regards to your proposed position. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that "a soft answer turns away wrath"-(proverbs 15:1)

lpetrich

LadyShea
... Many people convert to a religion who were apatheists. But I have never heard of someone who rationally concluded that there probably isn't any deities and studied all of the evidence, suddenly changing their mind.
The only counterexample I can think of is Cyril Edwin Mitchison Joad, who lived half a century ago in the UK.

But many of the fundie ex-X's are not known for having left much documentation of their alleged former beliefs. Nor do they seem very embarrassed about their alleged former selves -- they sometimes seem proud of their alleged past.

Also, there is no shortage of religions and belief systems that have enthusiastic converts.

MysteryProf

4God: While the myth of Dionysus you present is an accepted one, you're also leaving out a variety of other tales of Dionysus/Bacchus that do present him as a savior.

The best examples can be taken from Euripides' The Bacchae, which details Dionysus' travels as he gains support for himself as son of Zeus. When he comes to Thebes, his own cousin Pentheus refuses to accept him as a god's child and even sends him to the execution block. But Dionysus, of course, rises again -- as a divinity himself. (See quote below.)


My other favorite is Dionysus' prediction of his return:

So, I'm with Biff when it comes to comparing Jesus and Dionysus.
Did you know that in some versions of the myth, Semele is a virgin who is impregnated by Zeus' thunderbolt?

~MysteryProf

Enlighten Me

I think that perceptions of what it means to be an atheist play into the discussion...To the general public, an atheist is a person who perversely rejects God. Atheists themselves know that atheism is usually the result of agonizing, painful, and courageous consideration of each and every dogma ever encountered in ones religious upbringing. To describe all babies as atheists doesn't account for the sophisticated thinking that goes into such a profound decision regarding the non-existence of God.

MysteryProf: Thanks for the mini-lesson in Classical Studies! Very interesting...