My deconversion story

[+Sherapy]

9 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Welcome to the dark side, Guyver.

* Passes cookies *

 

Yep. Still in CA

OC, right? We gotta meet!

[Only_]

On 2017-11-01 at 11:27 PM, Paranoid Android said:

The writings of the Bible are the earliest and most accurate of early Christianity. The other traditions come from later times and do not reflect the earliest believers, in my opinion. Which is not to say that they can't be valuable texts, they still tell us about early Christian views. Just not the earliest, as I see it. 

The Gnostics weren't just trying to save the world, but were trying to save their sanity in a Roman Empire that eerily parallels our times. Today, Gnosticism might be our best hope in gaining soundness of thought in a den of disinformation might be the ultimate victory. C.G. Jung once said: ''The Gnostics were history's first depth psychologists''. As such, they were in the best position to decipher the core of Jesus' teachings. Their scriptures present a form of Christianity that resonates perfectly well in our time. Which means they speak timeless truths.

Edited November 5, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[SHaYap]

*welcome smile*

wb PA / Tiggs ...

~

[Davros of Skaro]

On 11/4/2017 at 10:48 PM, TruthSeeker_ said:

The Gnostics weren't just trying to save the world, but were trying to save their sanity in a Roman Empire that eerily parallels our times. Today, Gnosticism might be our best hope in gaining soundness of thought in a den of disinformation might be the ultimate victory. C.G. Jung once said: ''The Gnostics were history's first depth psychologists''. As such, they were in the best position to decipher the core of Jesus' teachings. Their scriptures present a form of Christianity that resonates perfectly well in our time. Which means they speak timeless truths.

Give it up... PA is too educated for that stuff.

Why not just give us the spiritual passwords for the celestial gates that paths towards the light? This way everybody can escape the Demiurge's stomach that sucks out the suffering, and defecates us back into darkness. 

[eight bits]

davros

Meh. PA believes that the canonical Gospels are older than the Gnostic scriptures, and so concludes proto-orthodoxy would be the original version of Christianity, or at least closer to it than the other versions that the proto forces overcame, like Gnosticism.

Tricky buisness, though, since so many of the ideas in proto-orthodoxy are older than Christianity. Ancients knew this in the early Christian centuries; we can see it for ourselves today.

Furthermore, it is the proto-orthodox who tell us IN THE CANON (Acts, to be specific) that Simon of Samaria was a contemporary of Jesus, with an already established following when the Apostles were still setting up shop. Proto commentators attribute core "Gnostic" ideas to this Simon.

If the canon represents the original version of Christianity, then that original version acknowledged that a fully operational Gnostic movement was at least as old as itself. I don't see a lot of wiggle room here.

[Davros of Skaro]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

davros

Meh. PA believes that the canonical Gospels are older than the Gnostic scriptures, and so concludes proto-orthodoxy would be the original version of Christianity, or at least closer to it than the other versions that the proto forces overcame, like Gnosticism.

Tricky buisness, though, since so many of the ideas in proto-orthodoxy are older than Christianity. Ancients knew this in the early Christian centuries; we can see it for ourselves today.

Furthermore, it is the proto-orthodox who tell us IN THE CANON (Acts, to be specific) that Simon of Samaria was a contemporary of Jesus, with an already established following when the Apostles were still setting up shop. Proto commentators attribute core "Gnostic" ideas to this Simon.

If the canon represents the original version of Christianity, then that original version acknowledged that a fully operational Gnostic movement was at least as old as itself. I don't see a lot of wiggle room here.

I'll just quote Philo:

Philo: ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, I

"XXXIII...What, then, are we to say? Surely that death is of two kinds; the one being the death of the man, the other the peculiar death of the soul – now the death of the man is the separation of his soul from his body, but the death of the soul is the destruction of virtue and the admission of vice; and consequently God calls that not merely “to die,” but “to die the death;” showing that he is speaking not of common death, but of that peculiar and especial death which is the death of the soul, buried in its passions...When, therefore, God says, “to die the death,” you must remark that he is speaking of that death which is inflicted as punishment, and not of that which exists by the original ordinance of nature. The natural death is that one by which the soul is separated from the body. But the one which is inflicted as a punishment, is when the soul dies according to the life of virtue, and lives only according to the life of vice. Well, therefore, did Heraclitus say this, following the doctrine of Moses; for he says, “We are living according to the death of those men; and we have died according to their life.” As if he had said, Now, when we are alive, we are so though our soul is dead and buried in our body, as if in a tomb. But if it were to die, then our soul would live according to its proper life, being released from the evil and dead body to which it is bound."

Edited November 7, 2017 by davros of skaro
I always misspell "quote".

[XenoFish]

Good to see you PA. Good luck on your personal journey.

[Only_]

On 2017-11-07 at 0:39 AM, davros of skaro said:

Give it up... PA is too educated for that stuff.

Why not just give us the spiritual passwords for the celestial gates that paths towards the light?

Come towards the Light of Reason™, it's cheaper.

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[Davros of Skaro]

5 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Come towards the Light of Reason™, it's cheaper.

 

[XenoFish]

Davros you forgot about the god helmet.

[Piney]

On 11/1/2017 at 5:26 AM, Paranoid Android said:

I'd definitely still say that Jesus is worthy of emulation in many ways. His teaching was revolutionary for his day. One of the great forward thinkers. However, the message of the Bible is one that I cannot hold to. It's the dogma of the Bible, organised religion is a different entity altogether, one which even in my past I never adhered to. 

Sounds like the Peaslee/ Hicksite Quaker theology that has been preached at my Meeting for the past century.

[Davros of Skaro]

On 11/9/2017 at 6:08 AM, XenoFish said:

Davros you forgot about the god helmet.

The God Helmet is just the placebo effect.

Turn all the lights on in your house, and rest your head on the breaker panel. Did you experience God?

Now tell a gullible spiritualist that your breaker panel is an interdimensional quantum spiritual communicator that gives messages, and have them rest their head on it. What message did they get?

[Space Commander Travis]

Good to see that this thread hasn't become a vehicle for people to attack people who do have religious belief of some kind as deranged and deluded.

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

What message did they get?

" It's too damn bright in 'ere "

~

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Good to see that this thread hasn't become a vehicle for people to attack people who do have religious belief of some kind as deranged and deluded.

Yeah what's wrong with us. Seems we're off our A game.

[Opus Magnus]

On 10/31/2017 at 8:57 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Hello hello, one and all. It has been a long time between posts, and I have to say I've missed you all, and missed this place. Some of you old timers around here are probably surprised to see my name in a topic, it's been two years or more since I last was here to offer anything substantial. And those same old timers probably are curious and/or surprised by the title of my thread. As you all know I was well known for defending most things Christian here at UM. And while I still WILL defend a lot of the arguments against Christianity as I do believe that they are unfounded or exaggerated or simply plain misunderstood, I am no longer a Christian. I moved away from Christianity about a year ago now. I'll try and tell you guys my story, and hopefully as concisely as possible.

It was actually a long process, with several curves along the way, but I'll skip that and get right down to the final bit. I've been dealing with self-esteem/self-worth issues my whole life. I felt like a broken person, and I thought this was normal. Everyone must be broken, right? So the message of Christianity really rang true to me - we are broken by sin and need Jesus to save us because we can't save ourselves. This core belief led to a lot of negative behaviours, one of those being alcohol addiction. Which is what I have been working on for the last number of months.

One of the therapy sessions I had included a handout on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In it was a line along the lines of "this is why I always say it is most important to have a good quality relationship with yourself first, because if you can get that right the rest usually falls into place". Taken on its own this statement makes a lot of sense, but it also contradicts the core tenets of Christian theology - a good relationship with Jesus first and then the rest falls into place. At this point I came to a realisation - unless I can learn to love myself I will never beat my addiction.

So I had several choices:

• 1- Radically alter my views on Christianity and argue that the Bible doesn't teach anything about sin and brokenness in humanity.
• 2- Go the complete reversal and treat Jesus like an addiction in itself, devote absolutely everything I am to him and forget what everything else says.
• 3- Choose to see the message of Christianity as flawed, move on to my own set of beliefs on the universe, where I am a valuable human being who deserves to be loved and respected (from myself as well as from others).

This is a simplistic generalisation but roughly explains why and how I came to choose option 3, and spent the last 14 months building myself up from the ground up. It ignores a large part of the lead up events that led me to question my faith and settles on just the final straw. But regardless, today I sit at the keyboard writing to you all as someone who believes in themselves, someone who has a strong sense of identity, is self assured, valuable, and in no ways broken by the things that have happened to me throughout my life. I am a strong and independent ex-Christian. And I needed to let you guys know that. I'll be around here and there to check on things and post around the place, so I'll catch you all around at some point in the future.

~ Regards, PA

P.S - I still believe in a creator, though, so there's a fair way to go before I get to the atheist phase that I'm sure at least some of you are hoping I get to  

well, i didn't want to say this before, to sound rude or influence your wedding, but since that time is probably over. In the gospel it says if you marry a woman who has been divorced before, it makes you an adulterer. Also, if your level of adultery doesn't match hers, then the relationship won't work. Because there is nothing in the Torah forbidding marrying the divorced, except for the Levites.

also, God isn't supposed to make you feel so guilty, but Satan will play God and make it happen. 

And, as written in the gospel, the shephard will smite himself and everyone will hate him. So, some hatred for Jesus is neccesary. It's not always like Iscariot.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

well, i didn't want to say this before, to sound rude or influence your wedding, but since that time is probably over. In the gospel it says if you marry a woman who has been divorced before, it makes you an adulterer. Also, if your level of adultery doesn't match hers, then the relationship won't work. Because there is nothing in the Torah forbidding marrying the divorced, except for the Levites.

also, God isn't supposed to make you feel so guilty, but Satan will play God and make it happen. 

And, as written in the gospel, the shephard will smite himself and everyone will hate him. So, some hatred for Jesus is neccesary. It's not always like Iscariot.

When you base your life on a bronze age book. Never expect to be happy or find any enjoyment in life. 

[Rightfully]

On 11/1/2017 at 4:57 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Welcome back didnt ever meet you as Im only a new member but I would like to say thanks for sharing your story I enjoyed hearing the depth of realism an honesty in what you had to say.No wonder you have been well respected an welcomed back as you have been.Its a pleasure to meet you hope to run into you again soon.

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 07/11/2017 at 4:39 PM, davros of skaro said:

Give it up... PA is too educated for that stuff

 

On 07/11/2017 at 5:42 PM, eight bits said:

davros

Meh. PA believes that....

I appreciate you guys speaking on my behalf, and for your faith in my intelligence  Since I don't really base my life on the Bible anymore the question is rather moot, though, wouldn't you say?

 

On 07/11/2017 at 5:42 PM, eight bits said:

PA believes that the canonical Gospels are older than the Gnostic scriptures, and so concludes proto-orthodoxy would be the original version of Christianity, or at least closer to it than the other versions that the proto forces overcame, like Gnosticism.

Tricky buisness, though, since so many of the ideas in proto-orthodoxy are older than Christianity. Ancients knew this in the early Christian centuries; we can see it for ourselves today.

Furthermore, it is the proto-orthodox who tell us IN THE CANON (Acts, to be specific) that Simon of Samaria was a contemporary of Jesus, with an already established following when the Apostles were still setting up shop. Proto commentators attribute core "Gnostic" ideas to this Simon.

If the canon represents the original version of Christianity, then that original version acknowledged that a fully operational Gnostic movement was at least as old as itself. I don't see a lot of wiggle room here.

I generally don't like to delve into "what if's", not when it comes to history anyway. While it can be fun to look into all the "what if's" of history actually indulging in them all makes ancient history an impossible subject to ever draw conclusions over. For what it's worth I will agree that many of the ideas of Christianity and Gnosticism are older than Christianity itself. That's history, that's the evolution of ideas, that's how history works. No idea in the history of anything arrived in a vacuum. However, when you want to find out about a particular group and what they believed at a particular time in history then you need to go back to the earliest documents we have about them. One thing the church has going for it is that the earliest Christian writings can indeed give us a snapshot about those earliest beliefs. 

That we can find gnostic ideas in pre-Christian times only demonstrates that such ideas existed. It says nothing of what early Christians believed. Unless we throw all of ancient history into extreme doubt we have to use the available evidence that we have to determine what the earliest proponents of Christianity believed in. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 12/11/2017 at 3:56 AM, Opus Magnus said:

well, i didn't want to say this before, to sound rude or influence your wedding, but since that time is probably over.

We broke up. About six months ago now. It's a long story.

On 12/11/2017 at 3:56 AM, Opus Magnus said:

In the gospel it says if you marry a woman who has been divorced before, it makes you an adulterer. Also, if your level of adultery doesn't match hers, then the relationship won't work.

I am very confused. Neither me nor my ex-partner were previously married (therefore not divorced). We were both guilty of premarital sex, though, and thus both adulterers, but I would hazard to say that because of my conservative background she was probably more "guilty" of that than I, so her "level of adultery" probably doesn't match mine. Is that why we broke up? Because she had sex with more people than I did???? Is that how relationships work? If I had premarital sex three times and my partner had it four times then therefore I'd have to "level the scores" in order for the relationship to work???
I'm being flippant with that final sentence because I struggle to see a point that you are raising.

On 12/11/2017 at 3:56 AM, Opus Magnus said:

also, God isn't supposed to make you feel so guilty, but Satan will play God and make it happen. 

And, as written in the gospel, the shephard will smite himself and everyone will hate him. So, some hatred for Jesus is neccesary. It's not always like Iscariot.

I am very confused again. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Is this aimed at me and my (relatively) newfound life without Jesus?  

[eight bits]

PA

I wasn't speaking for you. You have posted the view I attributed to you, and you haven't retracted it, so far as I know. If I ought to have used he past tense (PA believed ...), then I'd be delighted to stand corrected, but it sounds to me as if the present tense was correct.

Quote

While it can be fun to look into all the "what if's" of history actually indulging in them all makes ancient history an impossible subject to ever draw conclusions over.

Our indulgence isn't an issue. What you call "what ifs," another might call gaps in our knowledge, understanding and evidence. The gaps are there, whether we "indulge" them or not, and more so in ancient history than in recent history. Except for broad brushstrokes, strong conclusions about the ancients will be tentative.

Quote

However, when you want to find out about a particular group and what they believed at a particular time in history then you need to go back to the earliest documents we have about them. One thing the church has going for it is that the earliest Christian writings can indeed give us a snapshot about those earliest beliefs.

Fair enough; let's indulge. Acts is in that set of documents, and Acts says the Simonian movement is of the same vintage, or earlier, than the apostolic movement. Now, there appears to have been a Simonian literature, from about the same time as the Gospels-Acts, but it seems to have been misplaced. The people who misplaced it describe the Simonian literature as Gnostic (our word, not theirs) and Christ-respecting.

So, the earliest form of Christianity was ...? It seems we have a photo-finish. The surviving stable claims that its horse won, but unfortunately, they've lost the photo. Hmm. Conclusions about the ancients will necessarily be tentative.

[Only_]

On 2017-11-11 at 11:59 AM, XenoFish said:

When you base your life on a bronze age book. Never expect to be happy or find any enjoyment in life. 

Are people really finding more happiness in life with 'the modern' books'? I don't think so.

Edited November 16, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[XenoFish]

10 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Are people really finding more happiness in life with 'the modern' books'? I don't think so.

I have. Though I can speak for everyone. Religion is one less thing I have to care/worry about. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by XenoFish

[Only_]

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I have. Though I can speak for everyone. Religion is one less thing I have to care/worry about. 

Based on how much suffering, violence, corruption, crimes, addictions, suicides ect. there is in our modern societies, I think we have found our answer.

Edited November 16, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[+Hammerclaw]

When we feel the need to shout our personal perspectives from a street corner, virtual or otherwise, are we trying to convince others, or are we trying to convince ourselves?