De-converting the Christian

[Poonis]

De-converting the Christian

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?auto...ogid=48&eid=159

Ben B.

 

The goal of christianity is readily observable to anyone who researches history. Every torturous and bloody crusade and inquisition of old, to the less violent and less deadly missionary incursions of today, always completed with fortunes spent on political lobbying to this effect, is testament to how they seek to assimilate every non-believer by force, law, and fear. What they can not achieve forcefully overnight, they reserve themselves to the subtleness of the serpent they warn against, and proceed with gradualism.

 

As an atheist having been subjected to this system, I counter with the mission to deconvert christians. I seek to show them they are their own person, and that they can be their best friend or their own worst enemy. I want them to know it is beneficial for them to think for themselves, and adhere to what they think is best for themselves. I do not hate them, nor do I fear their beliefs.

 

I was once a fundamentalist christian. With the following, I speak from experience.

 

Nothing about Christianity and the christian must ever be assumed. This is the game they themselves unknowingly are pawns of, calling it belief and faith. If necessary, the Socratic Method, effectively used, will deconstruct any argument when the one employing it defaults to admitting they know not one thing about Christianity. Christianity is adamant with knowing the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Let them think they know what they are talking about, as this is what is used against them, in order to set them free.

 

Christianity is about fear, and nothing more. There is no more foundational aspect than this. To strike at every branch of the tree of fear will accomplish nothing. Countering their doctrines by pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods only works to solidify their beliefs, just as it solidifies your disbelief. To strike at fear itself is the only effective way to set them free of themselves.

 

Just as the Christian needs belief, scripture, and fellow congregants to sustain their faith, the de-converted will understand that these three things are without merit, and of mankind's creation, and no god, and have no practical use in living one's life. This is why the atheist has no belief, no scripture, and no church.

 

1. Golden Rule: beliefs effect nothing.

 

Belief has no power to effect *anything*. The truth is what *is*, and belief cannot change this. If the christian believes you will burn in hell for your lack of belief, leave it at that. You know that they do not really know this, but only believe they do. There is no reason to get upset at them for this, as it is to be expected of them. It is their nature to effect their fears; to counter these claims is to waste one's breath. Truth requires no belief.

 

2. Christians are controlled by fear.

 

Christians are mentally chained to belief, and these chains are their fears. This mental chain rules them physically in everything they say and do. The greater their fears envelope them is observable to their adherance to their religious beliefs. These fears always stem from the fear of the unknown. All christians say they do not fear death; yet they all believe they will go to heaven once they die. They fear hell; they do not want to go there when they die. The fanatical christian, under the burden of the greatest of fear, believes he will not even die, but will be miraculously raptured straight to heaven. The evidence of fear is shown by the beliefs they profess to counter them.

 

3. Their thoughts are not their own.

 

It must be realized that the whole of christianity is assimilation, and not free-thought. For everything you point out to them, they have read and memorized the response. This is the whole of their indoctrination. They will even tell you they think for themselves, but all their responses to their psychological environment have been long planned out.

 

4. Christians are easily offended.

 

This must not be used against them, if you seek to de-convert them. For them, to be offended is all the ground they need to blacklist you and shut you out completely. The more offended they are, the more they are struggling for your help, and offending them will not help them to autonomous awareness and realization.

 

5. They must be accepted for who they are.

 

Christianity plays a game where, if you are not with them, you are against them. Nature does not dictate who is to be who's enemy, of even if there should be enemies; only man does this. To the christian, the non-christian is the outcast in desperate need of salvation. Do not play this game; accept them unconditionally. Christians, like most people, build a metaphorical steel-reinforced concrete nuclear bunker that is ever ready for them to retreat into should the nature of their being be pointed out to them. You do not want them to retreat.

 

How, then, is a Christian de-converted? It takes time for a Christian to de-convert; the deeper they are within christianity, the longer it may take. The secret of de-conversion is that no one can be de-converted by another, they can only de-convert themselves. The Christian can never be forced into de-conversion, nor can they be lead to it. They will always lead themselves, after metaphorically 'having their world stopped' by another.

 

1. The Christian needs only one thought or experience that is unsatisfactorily answerable by their religion, pastor, and bible.

 

This is the position that is necessary to enable the christian to force themselves confront their very existance. It will forever gnaw at their very being until it is answered. When no one else can answer it for them, they are forced to answer for themselves. This is how they are led to confronting their very existance; it pits them at a cross-roads of which no map or guide exists, and they must choose for themselves. This is their awakening; the beginning of their autonomous thinking and realization.

 

2. You must appeal to their very existance.

 

For de-conversion, no question about their faith will achieve any other response than that which they already memorized. A christian can never be told otherwise than what they have been indoctrinated with. However, the christian does not spend much time studying their own life. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living, and nowhere is this more helpfull than in de-conversion. Religious indoctrination is the necessity of the question. The question must appeal to their very self. How the Christian personally should live his life, as nature presents it to him, is found in no book. The question, "What will that do for you?", as simple and unassuming as it reads, has more power than all the scriptural recitation will ever produce. The bible does not appeal to one's existance, only their fears.

 

4. De-conversion is often a slow process, sometimes taking years.

 

There is no over-night de-conversion. It does not happen. This does not mean they must be constantly attended to, and helped through their de-conversion. In fact, the christian may never remember your name, and not even remember you until years later, if at all. You only need to plant the seeds of doubt, by appealing to their very existance, and leave, regardless of their reaction. In conversion, constant reassurance, church attendance, worship, sermons, fellowship, religious outtings, revivals, and so on are needed to keep one converted. It is interesting to note that for one to be converted to Christianity can "happen in an instant" when the "holy ghost enters your soul." Christianity needs converts, and they are needed now. For a fundamentalist to de-convert, the appeal to their very existance is equivalent to a tiny hole in the hull of an ocean-liner. Nothing may be apparent for a long time, but eventually, the ship, as their beliefs, will sink. Time is the referee. In this, no supervision is ever necessary for the Christian who will unknowingly undergo de-conversion.

 

5. In the end, it will be the Christian who has de-converted themselves.

 

Just as it is falsely thought that one can be converted to Christianity, so to is it false that someone can de-convert a christian. No one has ever wholeheartedly converted to christianity save by choice, so to will no one wholeheartedly de-convert but by the same choice. Whereas fear of the unknown is the vehicle of conversion driven by false pretenses of truth, knowledge of what is not true is the vehicle of de-conversion driven by the de-converted who has found the truth in himself. Once truth is known, there is no need for belief, as it has been successfully subdued, rendered absurd, unnecessary, and without merit.

[spamandham]

Jefferson wrote privately to Paine that although he (Jefferson) agreed with "The Age of Reason", he thought it was immoral to publish it because of what it might do to the faithfull psychologically.

 

I agree with him to some degree. Unless you offer a replacement (like philosophy or some other nonthreatening religion) that fills the psychological void left by abandoning faith, you do a tremendous disservice to the individuals who are likely to be left depressed, despondent, and often suicidal. These are people who mostly have never thought for themselves regarding ethical issues, and who have never gazed into the abyss of annihilation.

 

What do we do then in a world where the religious beliefs of others threaten not only us but innocents of competing religions? I have found it effective to combat propoganda with countering arguments in public forums - enough to let the evangelicals know that their attempts at conversion will be met with attempts at deconversion. This has actually been effective .

 

Second, address your attacks at the ones causing all the trouble. Odds are they won't listen, but they might notice that others close to them are listening and back off.

 

Finally, ANY attempt to insert religious nonsense into politics must be met head on mercilessly. I see no other way on that one.

 

A "crusade" to deconvert the masses is a bit like the hideously immoral modern concept of war, in which civilians are held accountable for the stupidity and wrecklessness of their masters. There will be many innocent casualties whose wrecked lives rest on your shoulders.

[Ouroboros]

Nice! Very good stuff!

 

Is it from you, a book of from a lecture?

 

Ben B. is that an author I don't know about yet? Or is it you?

[Poonis]

A "crusade" to deconvert the masses is a bit like the hideously immoral modern concept of war, in which civilians are held accountable for the stupidity and wrecklessness of their masters.  There will be many innocent casualties whose wrecked lives rest on your shoulders.

 

As I wrote this, I wrote it in response and in reaction to the world I was forced into: fundamentalist christianity.

 

I do not expect christians to read this. In fact, I know most, if not all, will glance over this and dismiss it. I do not write it for them.

 

I have had no chance to thank the person who used this method on me and 'stopped my world'. That was 4 years ago, and at the time I wanted to punch his face in. It has taken me 4 years of de-conversion and reflection to fully understand what happened and find out that he really knew what he was doing. I never even knew his name, nor will I probably ever see him again.

 

If innocent religious casualties rest upon my shoulders, then my liberty of thought, which I am truly greatful for, rests on the shoulders of the person who did it to me as well. And I thank him for it.

[Poonis]

Nice! Very good stuff!

 

Is it from you, a book of from a lecture?

 

Ben B. is that an author I don't know about yet? Or is it you?

 

It is from me, which I wrote today.

[Ouroboros]

It is from me, which I wrote today.

Jolly Good. I'll save a copy of it to my HD, that's ok?

[Poonis]

Jolly Good. I'll save a copy of it to my HD, that's ok?

 

I put it on the internet for all who so choose to read it. I'll be posting more, as well.

[qadeshet]

"I agree with him to some degree. Unless you offer a replacement (like philosophy or some other nonthreatening religion) that fills the psychological void left by abandoning faith, you do a tremendous disservice to the individuals who are likely to be left depressed, despondent, and often suicidal."

 

We offer Truth and Freedom, and that is enough. Should we be required to supply another Religious Meme to replace the one they lost? The great gift of Freethought is gift enough.

[Lunar Shadow]

De-converting the Christian

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?auto...ogid=48&eid=159

Ben B.

 

 

Very good read there Poonis touching on the subject of "De-conversion is often a slow process, sometimes taking years." I would agree with that whole heartedly I guess you could say that I had been on the deco version road for quite some time. One day my Brother called me up and said that he had outright deconverted (for me there was always a silly fear that oh I dunno lightning would strike me down if I said something like that) but thanks to by Brothers intellect and courage it gave me the balls to take the jump. It was not an overnight thing it still took about a year and a half for me to completely deconvert but here I am now free and clear and I have to say thanks to my DEAREST brother. (You know who you are)

[dogmatically_challenged]

Jefferson wrote privately to Paine that although he (Jefferson) agreed with "The Age of Reason", he thought it was immoral to publish it because of what it might do to the faithfull psychologically. 

 

I agree with him to some degree.  Unless you offer a replacement (like philosophy or some other nonthreatening religion) that fills the psychological void left by abandoning faith, you do a tremendous disservice to the individuals who are likely to be left depressed, despondent, and often suicidal.  These are people who mostly have never thought for themselves regarding ethical issues, and who have never gazed into the abyss of annihilation.

 

What do we do then in a world where the religious beliefs of others threaten not only us but innocents of competing religions?  I have found it effective to combat propoganda with countering arguments in public forums - enough to let the evangelicals know that their attempts at conversion will be met with attempts at deconversion.  This has actually been effective .

 

Second, address your attacks at the ones causing all the trouble. Odds are they won't listen, but they might notice that others close to them are listening and back off.

 

Finally, ANY attempt to insert religious nonsense into politics must be met head on mercilessly.  I see no other way on that one.

 

A "crusade" to deconvert the masses is a bit like the hideously immoral modern concept of war, in which civilians are held accountable for the stupidity and wrecklessness of their masters.  There will be many innocent casualties whose wrecked lives rest on your shoulders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I totaly agree. Lurkers will see the deabates between ExChristians/NonChristians and Christians that go on in Forums and it will plant seeds of doubt.

 

In RT I never break my rule of not spending to much time with fundies, not even family, unless they are having doubts. But even then I was careful.

 

I think it is necessary to talk about these things with nonchristians who think the bible is a wholesom book. There are also people who are so so "kinda" Christians that respond to what is shown them.

 

Perhaps in forums the good cop bad cop that we see from all the members here can be efective as well. This happens even if we aren't aware of it.

 

There will always be a heathen here who can plant seeds of doubt in a nonagressive way( good cop) and a heathen who doesn't pull any punches (bad cop)

 

Lurkers will get a lot out of these kinds of interactions in forums.

 

As for the damage done in families because of difference in beliefs this thread reminds me that nonbelief and belief in a family can do damage depending on the family. I come from a family that were divided in religious beliefs and we have suffered..yet I forget that nonbelief and belief in a family can divide just as easily for some families. The nonbeliever will have to play it smart. Different people require a different aproach.

[Godless Wonder]

Unless you offer a replacement (like philosophy or some other nonthreatening religion) that fills the psychological void left by abandoning faith, you do a tremendous disservice to the individuals who are likely to be left depressed, despondent, and often suicidal. 

"often suicidal" seems like an exaggeration to me. Having read several hundreds of deconversion stories on the net, I don't think I've come across one in which the person seemed suicidal. Sure it takes some adjustment of varying amounts, but I think severe depression and suicidal thoughts upon deconversion do not occur "often." But, perhaps you have some evidence of which I'm not aware.

[dogmatically_challenged]

"often suicidal" seems like an exaggeration to me.  Having read several hundreds of deconversion stories on the net, I don't think I've come across one in which the person seemed suicidal.  Sure it takes some adjustment of varying amounts, but I think severe depression and suicidal thoughts upon deconversion do not occur "often."  But, perhaps you have some evidence of which I'm not aware.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Suicidal probably is rare, but depression and anger is a side effect. If we are unbalenced in such a way we might do damage in some way until we finaly detox from jesus. The effects of deconverting varies from person to person as well. People are different. Being more aware of our own mortality is another that causes anxiety. But we can adjust to this by philosophy if we be atheist or spirituality if we are nonreligious. I am not against all forms of spirituality.

 

I have seen this here as well as in R.T.

[Mr. Neil]

I don't even try to deconvert people. Usually when I find myself in an argument or even a light discussion with a Christian, there's little I can actually do to draw this person out of their faith.

 

Usually it comes much later on, after a while in which I'm not even trying to do anything other than be who I am that the person comes along and says, "You know, your example made me rethink some of my beliefs, and I've deconverted from Christianity."

 

That will never cease to be powerful and mind-blowing, and it's very flattering in a way, but it's always the choice of the person to make that step. I'm absolutely powerless when it comes to changing people's minds.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Seeds of doubt here and there can never hurt regardless. I agree Neil. I agree.

[Amanda]

I believe this is an arena to debate Christians.... so perhaps I might include some thought from the "other" side... in a friendly, repective way to the many good people on this site...

 

One area that concerns me, is that we get stereotyped. If one person does something, that claims they are a Christian... then we ALL are then labeled the attributes of that ONE person... or even maybe from a lot of people, still it is not the case with ALL.

 

Many people get to claim the label Christian... which means to strive to be Christlike, and many, many, many times what people do that claim to strive to be Christlike have missed the mark... often by a longshot. Sooo, if one is to really attack Christianity... then the attack must be on Christ... otherwise one is just pointing out how they have missed the mark.

 

Attacks on Christ can not be totally reliable on most of the Biblical translations that I have seen, therefore would be necessary to include the concordances including lexicons and researching the evolution of the word to have a more comprehensive understanding.

 

However, having said that... I think that most of the people here are absolutely on the right track in that the atrocities that have been done in the name of Christianity would be the fury of Christ himself if he were standing as one person amongst us today!

 

De-converting the Christian

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?auto...ogid=48&eid=159

Ben B.

-----------------------------------------------

1. Golden Rule: beliefs effect nothing.

 

Belief has no power to effect *anything*. The truth is what *is*, and belief cannot change this. If the christian believes you will burn in hell for your lack of belief, leave it at that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. For the record, Jesus says ALL will go to heaven. (I know... most of you say you don't want to go... just humor me for a moment please... maybe heaven IS what you want it to be..)

2. Christians are controlled by fear.

 

Christians are mentally chained to belief, and these chains are their fears.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beliefs should be evolving for the person who is aware that they don't know EVERYTHING and be willing to change their beliefs if another appears more accurate in regards to the total picture. Perhaps many people would rather be right than to know the truth.

3. Their thoughts are not their own.

 

It must be realized that the whole of christianity is assimilation, and not free-thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christianity is based on a critical mind. It is Christ that questioned and stood up to the 'status quo' more than anyone, isn't he? Didn't he challenge the popular religions' interpretation in many regards and seeked an interpretation that met his own awareness of what is ULTIMATELY truth, much like you do?

4. Christians are easily offended.

 

This must not be used against them, if you seek to de-convert them. For them, to be offended is all the ground they need to blacklist you and shut you out completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ONLY thing that offended Christ is condemnation. Did his personal buddies and gang come out of the local synagogue? How is this based on Christ?

5. They must be accepted for who they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christ accepted EVERYONE for who they are. That is the whole premise of grace! Condemnation and it's derivative, hypocracy, is what he felt was offensive. Again, if you are talking about Christianity... you must revert to Christ... if you're showing where people are missing the mark... ok, I agree with you in many regards.

How, then, is a Christian de-converted? It takes time for a Christian to de-convert; the deeper they are within christianity, the longer it may take. The secret of de-conversion is that no one can be de-converted by another, they can only de-convert themselves. The Christian can never be forced into de-conversion, nor can they be lead to it. They will always lead themselves, after metaphorically 'having their world stopped' by another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just helping many of those who claim to be Christians, see the light of their own resource would be a great accomplishment of great magnitude!!! To this, applying the rest would work even better for your desired outcome.... being decent folks.

1. The Christian needs only one thought or experience that is unsatisfactorily answerable by their religion, pastor, and bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or just challenging the conflicting belief in regards to their own resource! How can truth contradict truth?

2. You must appeal to their very existance.

-------------------

However, the christian does not spend much time studying their own life. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living, and nowhere is this more helpfull than in de-conversion. ------------ How the Christian personally should live his life, as nature presents it to him, is found in no book. ---------------The bible does not appeal to one's existance, only their fears.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Self examined life... I agree!!! The "book" only appeals to one's fears is absolutely wrong and looks like you haven't read it... have you? Many fantastic principles to live one's life... the best I've ever found! Boy, I'd certainly challenge you there!!! (Of course, being on this site I have discovered that the way I interpret the Bible is similar as to the way the gnostics did around the time of Christ... although the gnostics and I disagree on many points.)

4. De-conversion is often a slow process, sometimes taking years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is true that transformation can take a long time or it can be an instant. Considering which belief to look at in a critical way, often does not just challenge that one idea but the many premises on which it is based. If one just uses the same resource they base their beliefs, instead of what many usually base on someone else's pontifications and not their own journey, then headway could possibly come about quicker. Even then, many don't care to take the energy to be critical thinkers... too hard, and that's ok... except when it hurts others... and it often does.

5. In the end, it will be the Christian who has de-converted themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would you even consider there may be a difference between religion and spirituality... and religion may be the deconversion and spirituality can still remain? Even Jesus taught this.

[spamandham]

Attacks on Christ can not be totally reliable on most of the Biblical translations that I have seen, therefore would be necessary to include the concordances including lexicons and researching the evolution of the word to have a more comprehensive understanding.

 

The detractors do not limit themselves to the books of the Bible. There are about 150 known early christian writings (including those in the NT), and

numerous non-christain writings from the time period that are also applicable. Would you be willing to consider those?

 

Christianity is based on a critical mind. It is Christ that questioned and stood up to the 'status quo' more than anyone, isn't he? Didn't he challenge the popular religions' interpretation in many regards and seeked an interpretation that met his own awareness of what is ULTIMATELY truth, much like you do?

 

For the sake of argument, let's say this story is true. What he did was to reject some other religion in favor of his new cult. This is a power grab, not critical thought. Anyone who would smite a fig tree for failing to produce figs out of season is not using a lot of critical thought.

[Amanda]

maybe labeling yourself is the problem.  You can call yourself a christ follower or any number of other things to describe your views that won't lump you into a "group"

---------------------------

Point is...you can't wholeheartedly claim a LABEL and then get pissed when that label does what it's intended to do.  When among your peers the label serves as a form of cohesion...when outside of your peergroup, the label serves to divide.  But you are the one who chose to put yourself in that box.  Not us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Zoe Grace, point well taken. BTW, I get more acceptance here than with most of the 'traditional' Christians.

[Reach]

Poonis,

 

I thoroughly enjoyed your thought provoking essay. While I agree with your assessments in general, I disagree with a few of your conclusions and assumptions. I did note that you said you were speaking from your own experience which I would never refute but I hope you won't mind if I share with you some of my perceptions, based on my experience as a different person than you are. I'm not debating with you over any of this but just relating another perspective in order that readers of this thread might have the opportunity to look at another view.

 

I will mention briefly just a few of the areas where my experience and conclusions are the polar opposite from yours. I note that we have arrived at the same place, Atheist. It's good to be free.

 

You say, "Nothing about Christianity and the christian must ever be assumed."

 

Christianity is about fear, and nothing more.

That was not the situation in my case. For me, Christianity addressed and answered some very basic existential and deep, philosophical questions. Christianity met emotional needs. Christianity provided filler for some gaps in my own personal relationships, provided a means of dealing with loss, and grief and pain. It helped to shape, define and to a certain degree assign me my raison d'être, purpose, goal and destiny. I'd like to say it was not about fear, but lest that not be 100% accurate, I'll say that it was about fear, last and least of all.

 

Countering their doctrines by pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods only works to solidify their beliefs, just as it solidifies your disbelief.

In my case, the opposite was true. Rather than solidifying my beliefs, I ran into some contradictions, etc... that I had inadvertently missed in my own studies. I was exposed to a couple moral conundrums that I had not yet run into. I was reminded about some of the discrepancies that had slipped my mind over the years. I added these to my growing stack of irreconcilables. As you might guess, that stack eventually came to be so heavy that it tipped the scale of my belief.

 

Christians are easily offended.

I disagree in this way. From my experience, more often than not, I see that it is the insecure who are easily offended. I'm rarely offended. The more secure I've come to be, the less I am offended. I know who I am and I am content that I am growing and improving with age. I'm not in competition with anyone and I have nothing to prove to anyone. As a Christian, that's how I grew to be, a Christian that could not be offended.

 

They must be accepted for who they are.

Again, I have to disagree. As a mature Christian I found total acceptance in Christ. I felt that God embraced me completely. With that kind of loving adoption into the family of God, I was prepared for "the world's rejection" and I experienced some of that. I came to a point where I needed precious little or no acceptance from man. I came to a place where, like it or not, I was willing to accept not being understood.

 

To strike at fear itself is the only effective way to set them free of themselves.

Because I am relatively fearless, this was an ineffective tactic that was occasionally tried on me. I got free because I studied my way out. My desire to be obedient to a god I perceived as loving drove me into study. In the end, it was reading the Bible for myself, rather than the regurgitations of scholars and theologians, noble or otherwise, that cost me my faith.

 

I think you effectively draw the same conclusion as you stated later, "In the end, it will be the Christian who has de-converted themselves." I could not agree with you more. Erudition, born of deep desire to know God better, is the door through which I found myself disabused of my faith. The contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods helped usher me over the threshold, along with some other things related to morality and the evil characteristics of the Christian god.

 

I'd write more but I think it might come off as sounding petty when my wish is simply to show a variance from your experience. From what I've seen, your generalizations seem to be true more often than not and because of that, they are helpful for us to both consider and apply. Thank you for such an interesting piece.

 

I think you're right. "Nothing about Christianity and the christian must ever be assumed."

 

-Reach

[Amanda]

The detractors do not limit themselves to the books of the Bible.  There are about 150 known early christian writings (including those in the NT), and

numerous non-christain writings from the time period that are also applicable.  Would you be willing to consider those?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure I am willing to consider those. Could you start with the best one to support your idea (which I'm not sure what that is) that I might research? The issue is that understanding these principles Jesus asserts in his teachings work in my life, and others, to offer the best life here and now! If you can show me someone with ideas and principles that have superceded those of Jesus, and he says that we can do greater things than him, I would love to see it!

For the sake of argument, let's say this story is true.  What he did was to reject some other religion in favor of his new cult.  This is a power grab, not critical thought.  Anyone who would smite a fig tree for failing to produce figs out of season is not using a lot of critical thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When an atheist or other stand happens to reject an idea and adhere to another one, it is critical thinking... yet, when Christ rejects an idea and adheres to another one it is a power play? Is accepting things at surface value critical thought?

[white_raven23]

Christianity is based on a critical mind.

 

No it isn't. After your next quote, I'll explain why.

 

It is Christ that questioned and stood up to the 'status quo' more than anyone, isn't he? Didn't he challenge the popular religions' interpretation in many regards and seeked an interpretation that met his own awareness of what is ULTIMATELY truth, much like you do?......

The ONLY thing that offended Christ is condemnation. Did his personal buddies and gang come out of the local synagogue? How is this based on Christ?.....

Christ accepted EVERYONE for who they are. That is the whole premise of grace! Condemnation and it's derivative, hypocracy, is what he felt was offensive. Again, if you are talking about Christianity... you must revert to Christ... if you're showing where people are missing the mark... ok, I agree with you in many regards.

 

Here's the problem. The religion of Christianity is based upon Jesus....in NAME only. Do not confuse Jesus the man with the religion based around him. Jesus the man (if he existed as the bible depicts him, which I doubt) was a better man than MOST declared Christians I've met, including myself when I was one.

Christ was offended by condemnation? Okay fine. Show me some Christians that have not condemned anyone by prejudice. Gay people? How about unwed mothers? Better yet....how about the prejudices within a single church congregation?

 

And it's not just some christians guilty of prejudice and hypocracy....it's MOST of them (note I do not say all).

 

Jesus did not construct a religion. He had a philosophy and he lived by example (excluding the fanciful "divinity" crap tossed on him). That's all.

 

OTHER people are culpable for the religion bearing his name.

[spamandham]

Sure I am willing to consider those. Could you start with the best one to support your idea (which I'm not sure what that is) that I might research?

 

I don't have any particular idea I'm pushing, I just didn't know if you were aware of the noncanonical writings, or had given them any consideration. Look here if you want to explore more Early Christian Writings

 

When an atheist or other stand happens to reject an idea and adhere to another one, it is critical thinking... yet, when Christ rejects an idea and adheres to another one it is a power play?  Is accepting things at surface value critical thought? 

 

Rejection of one idea in favor of another, in and of itself, does not indicate critical thinking. You have to examine why such a paradigm shift takes place to determine if it was based on critical thought or not. In the case of Jesus, he claims to be changing the rules rather than simply correcting misperceptions. That's what the New Covenant is all about.

[Reach]

The religion of Christianity is based upon Jesus....in NAME only. Do not confuse Jesus the man with the religion based around him. Jesus the man (if he existed as the bible depicts him, which I doubt) was a better man than MOST declared Christians I've met, including myself when I was one.

 

Jesus did not construct a religion. He had a philosophy and he lived by example (excluding the fanciful "divinity" crap tossed on him). That's all.

 

OTHER people are culpable for the religion bearing his name.

Thank you for making these distinctions which I agree with. When I was a "Christian," I called myself a "follower of Christ," for the very reasons, among others, that you mention. I believe that much of modern Christianity is the work of Paul, so what we have is effectively Pauline Christianity under the interpretation and extrapolation of the Church of Rome. Whether Jesus really ever existed or not, what is most often missing is the philosophy of Christ and by natural extension the behavior found in the example of Christ.

[Lokmer]

Attacks on Christ can not be totally reliable on most of the Biblical translations that I have seen, therefore would be necessary to include the concordances including lexicons and researching the evolution of the word to have a more comprehensive understanding.

Attacks on Christ *as a messiah* according to the criteria and laws of the Old Testament are very well merited. That was actually the thing that pushed me over the threshhold into unbelief.

 

Christ said many laudable things, things that helped me both to bravely question my faith and inspired me to form many of the values I still hold to today, and provide the framework for some of my self-critical structure. As a person, I am richer for having internalized many of the things he said.

 

Jesus in the gospels also did and said some pretty insane and nutty things. If you're a Historical Jesus-type, ignoring the apocalyptic pronouncements and some of the nuttier things, that's fine. But that Jesus isn't the one found in the gospels.

 

Beliefs should be evolving for the person who is aware that they don't know EVERYTHING and be willing to change their beliefs if another appears more accurate in regards to the total picture. Perhaps many people would rather be right than to know the truth.

Indeed. Words of wisdom here, Amanda.

 

Christianity is based on a critical mind. It is Christ that questioned and stood up to the 'status quo' more than anyone, isn't he? Didn't he challenge the popular religions' interpretation in many regards and seeked an interpretation that met his own awareness of what is ULTIMATELY truth, much like you do?

The picture in the gospels paints Jesus as a low-level radical - more of a reformer than a revolutionary. In the story, he opposed the dominant school of theology and the self-righteousness and profiteering he saw there. But he didn't oppose anything truly earth-shaking such as slavery et.al. Fictional character or historical, he is compelling and inspirational in the context of his own narrative, and for that credit is due. In the wider context of the history of the time (particularly in the world of Pagan radicals in the 500 years preceeding him) he appears far less significant, revolutionary, or important than the gospels or church tradition would make him out to be.

 

By the way, I take *serious* issue with the idea that Christianity is based on a critical mind. Christianity is based on simple (often blind) faith and obedience. It leaves room for a critical mind, and post-enlightenment Christianity often uses a critical mind as window dressing, but critical-minded Christians are the exception, not the rule. Particularly critical-minded Christians who turn that criticalness back on themselves and their own doctrines, beliefs and assumptions. It does happen, but it's exceedinly rare, because the Church has two words for that:

 

Heretics (from the greek meaning "one who is able to chose")

Apostates (from the greek meaning "rebellion").

 

Just helping many of those who claim to be Christians, see the light of their own resource would be a great accomplishment of great magnitude!!! To this, applying the rest would work even better for your desired outcome.... being decent folks.

It all depends on whose words Christians hold to be authoritative, and what light they read them in. Paul, James, John, John's Jesus, and the synoptic Jesus all preach different, and, on some points, irreconcilable, gospels and salvation plans. Similarly, Moses and the Major Prophets speak of several divergent (and irreconcilable) paths of righteousness. Looking at the Bible as one book expressing the will of one God forces the acceptance of so many conflicting and mutually exclusive doctrines that the believer has no choice but to pick a favorite author/speaker and interpret all else in radical submission to that one authority. But reading them this way really does violence to what is actually written. I prefer to read any book for what is there, taking what I consider of value and not feeling the compulsion to take the rest on some authority.

 

Or just challenging the conflicting belief in regards to their own resource! How can truth contradict truth?

It can't. So, when you have a contradiction....

 

you have something in the equation that is not true.

 

Many fantastic principles to live one's life... the best I've ever found! Boy, I'd certainly challenge you there!!!

Other books and writers/characters you would find valuable:

Plato

Aesclepius

Euripides

Pythagoras

The Stoics

Philo of Alexandria

 

Would you even consider there may be a difference between religion and spirituality... and religion may be the deconversion and spirituality can still remain? Even Jesus taught this.

 

Indeed, I have found that my spirituality is just as pronounced now as it was during my life as a Christian. For some coming out of far more fundamentalist sects than I wound up in, deconversion can actually be the *beginning* of spirituality.

 

The caveat, of course, comes in how you define "spiritual."

 

-Lokmer

[Lunar Shadow]

Indeed, I have found that my spirituality is just as pronounced now as it was during my life as a Christian.  For some coming out of far more fundamentalist sects than I wound up in, deconversion can actually be the *beginning* of spirituality.

 

The caveat, of course, comes in how you define "spiritual."

 

-Lokmer

 

 

 

I have found my self being less "spiritual". I don't believe in a god nor an "afterlife" so why would I have a spirit?? I guess I am not really following you on this lok... how would YOU define "spiritual"? my thoughts and feeling are pretty cut-n-dry on this but I am quite interested in your thoughts.

[Cerise]

I'm not spiritual. I'm physical. As soon as someone can explain exactly what a "spirit" might be then I can consider whether or not I have "spirituality".