My deconversion story

[FLOMBIE]

12 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Hey, at least the sessions are free. I know a lot of places claiming they're gonna enlighten you, but it'll cost.

The first sessions are often free.

[XenoFish]

47 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

The first sessions are often free.

Enlightenment basically means En-Lighten-Ment of your wallet. 

[Jack Skellington]

Welcome to the mystery of God.  Once you let go of the Christian floatie, you can dive deep.

Then, God willing you can drink of it and let it fill your lungs. 

 

Then you die...... and that's when it gets interesting. 

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, Jack Skellington said:

Then you die...... and that's when it gets interesting

That's when the organism's in your body start to devour you and then you become worm food.

[GlitterRose]

7 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

The first sessions are often free.

It says all the sessions are free. 

[GlitterRose]

It's why I like the Stephan Hoeller lectures. They're all free online.

[Passedfromdeathtolife]

I'm confused you gave up your faith in Jesus because Jesus doesn't tell you to love yourself?  

Umm haven't you read his second commandment is which love your neighbor as you love yourself?

He actually commands you to love yourself first and then love others? 

 

[XenoFish]

26 minutes ago, Passedfromdeathtolife said:

He actually commands you to love yourself first and then love others? 

That might get you arrested.

[XenoFish]

Sometimes people need to remove everything that doesn't work from a belief system to see the real point of it. 

[Only_]

17 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Sometimes people need to remove everything that doesn't work from a belief system to see the real point of it. 

As I've said constantly, gnosis may be your only hope to survive this protein, flee-attention span, Mandela-effect days when the Archons drown you in reality tunnels of misinformation and strangle you with the confirmation bias of your despotic ego.

Do you have gnostic tendencies?

[XenoFish]

Just now, TruthSeeker_ said:

 

Do you have gnostic tendencies?

I have the uncanny ability to think. 

[Only_]

31 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I have the uncanny ability to think. 

That direct experience with the truth and all it's prisons, that knowing of the unknown, that total recall. Welcome you modern-day Tom Sawyer, your mind not for rent, by any god or government.

Edited November 18, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[Guyver]

I'm surprised this deconversion story didn't get worked more.  Maybe because that's because I'm new.  I mean, Old new.  

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

Against Celsus,

By a diehard supporter of the Fahrenheit system?  

[eight bits]

Manfred

Quote

By a diehard supporter of the Fahrenheit system?

Lord Kelvin's sock puppet.

Guyver

Quote

I'm surprised this deconversion story didn't get worked more.  Maybe because that's because I'm new.  I mean, Old new.

We are working it. Speaking for myself, I'm trying to work out what's changed about PA and what's still the same, and why (and why the difference).

Speaking of whom,

PA

My comparison between you and Celsus wasn't meant to be a comment on either of you personally. The point is that Celsus has more than 1800 years' head start on any of us today.

Did Josephus really write about John the Baptist, Jesus and Jesus' brother James? Celsus could just look it up; we can't. And that's a much easier question than what was the root (or roots) of what had gelled into proto-orthodoxy by Origen's time. Even then, things were unsettled; Origen was personally confident that he was proto-orthodox, but many of his views were later rejected after Christianity became manadatory.

The reality is that we know of no time when there was only one single coherent brand of Christianity, unchallenged by other people who were just as sincerely devoted to continuing Jesus' mission as they understood the mission. We do know that a few brands eventually acquired the apparatus of the state, at which point almost all the records of earlier, less muscularly advocated views evaporated into puffs of smoke.

[Opus Magnus]

On 11/16/2017 at 6:41 AM, Paranoid Android said:

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

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.

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?  

Well, it's obvious your breakup has a lot to do with what you are letting out. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Not even Satan lets that happen. So, I guess, "When you lose, don't lose the lesson."

because, finding the stray sheep of the flock brings more rejoice than just keeping the 99 who didn't go missing.

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 18/11/2017 at 3:09 AM, eight bits said:

PA

Well, the "necessity" to reach firm conclusions about ancient events is at best debatable. But if it is necessary to reach a conclusion, then why not include a measure of the imperfect confidence with which the conclusion was drawn?

Admitting ignorance is no shame, and acknowledged uncertainty can only be more useful than admitted ignorance.

In principle I agree with you. Ancient history will never be a perfect study for these very reasons. In that sense then it is fair to say that a measure of uncertainty must be present. But the flip side of that argument is that historians use the sources available to them to draw the best possible conclusions. There may always be a "what if" question of doubt, but I believe it is unreasonable to apply that doubt unless you were to also conclude that virtually nothing from ancient history can be spoken of with confidence. Of course, if you do go that route and accept that there must always be doubt about almost all of ancient history, then we can agree to a large extent and leave it to your final sentence...

On 18/11/2017 at 3:09 AM, eight bits said:

Some group was active in the latter Second Century whose claims to be "the real Christianity" Celsus couldn't resolve by weighing the evidence. But you can, without acknowledged uncertainty?

Best I don't succumb to the necessity of reaching a conclusion about that .

And agree that acknowledged uncertainty is great as long as we hold the same view of all ancient history, and any historian drawing any kind of conclusion about almost every event that far back is unwarranted in doing so.  

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 18/11/2017 at 2:27 PM, Passedfromdeathtolife said:

I'm confused you gave up your faith in Jesus because Jesus doesn't tell you to love yourself?  

Umm haven't you read his second commandment is which love your neighbor as you love yourself?

He actually commands you to love yourself first and then love others? 

 

That's a really simplistic (and wrong) interpretation of what I wrote. Loving yourself and your neighbour is all well and good. But the Bible also teaches us that we are woefully sinful, broken beings who cannot hope to reach God on our own. The only way to fix that brokenness is through faith in Jesus. You will always be broken but by faith God will keep you strong and then you die and are resurrected a sinless and perfect being without the stain of sin. 

As long as I held that view no matter how much I "loved my neighbour as myself" I would remain broken. I cannot believe that any longer, because it's not true. I am not broken. I am not perfect (no one is) but that doesn't mean there's something fundamentally wrong with me that needs to be fixed. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

19 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

Well, it's obvious your breakup has a lot to do with what you are letting out. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Not even Satan lets that happen. So, I guess, "When you lose, don't lose the lesson."

because, finding the stray sheep of the flock brings more rejoice than just keeping the 99 who didn't go missing.

Obviously? With respect, Opus, you have no idea why we broke up, and your guesstimate is wildly wrong. 

[eight bits]

PA

Quote

but I believe it is unreasonable to apply that doubt unless you were to also conclude that virtually nothing from ancient history can be spoken of with confidence.

That just isn't true. There's a great deal of ancient history about which high confidence is justified. Unfortunately,anything that wasn't of wide interest at the time it happened is apt to be low confidence now, even if the matter becomes widely interesting even a few years later.

Historically, it matters little whether Jesus really lived or not, regardless of how important the question became to how many people, for non-secular reasons. Leaving evidence and being important at the time are nearly the same thing.

There are exceptions, and ironically, whose version of Christianity came first is one of them. The eventual winners energetically and effectively erased, rewrote and otherwise sanitized the pedigrees of the losers, Winston Smith style - or in ancient terms, as some Pharaohs did to some of their predecessors.

Another exception is the secret transaction, which may be very important in real time, but which by its nature leaves little evidence. What was the precise role of Masonic Lodges (and known-to-be closely related societies like the Sons of Liberty) in the American Revolution?

What was the nature of many "early" Jesus societies (as late as the Fourth Century after the events)? A membership organization as secretive as a Masonic lodge, or a resistance cell, or ...

Fortunately, there's tons of ancient history where the successors found better uses for their time than eradicating the memory of their forebears, and carried on their own business openly. It is simply false that if we question the real existence of, or the earliest popular ideas about somebody who was admired chiefly after his death, many of whose post-mortem admirers were vindictive and secretive, then all other history about that time collapses into paralyzing doubt. No, it doesn't.

-

Edited November 19, 2017 by eight bits

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

PA

That just isn't true.

Then let us agree to disagree then. The question of earliest Christian beliefs is quite well documented, in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

The eventual winners energetically and effectively erased, rewrote and otherwise sanitized the pedigrees of the losers

They must have done an amazing job, getting rid of ALL evidence to the contrary and leaving only the earliest writings of theirs to tell of things. On the balance of plausibility and questionability I must say this is unlikely. History has shown that no matter how good a group may be at trying to sanitise/rewrite history to their liking they never can get it 100%. These Christians, if they were successful, would be the first such group in history to be so effective. 

[eight bits]

PA

Quote

They must have done an amazing job, getting rid of ALL evidence to the contrary and leaving only the earliest writings of theirs to tell of things.

Who said they did get rid of all evidence of early defeated rivals? Not me.

The very first things I said about this imply that they didn't get rid of all traces of Simon - on the contrary, it is "they" who tell us who Simon was, what he and Helen stood for, and what the Simonian movement's timing was relative to the apostolics of the Jerusalem church, the group they themselves claim descent from.

Evidently, the lure of being able to brag that Peter beat Simon outweighed the attractiveness of dumping Simon in the memory hole.

We got onto Simon particularly because Gnosticism had already come up in the thread, and so its claim to priority, through Simon, was the natural one for us to take up. But Simon's movement isn't the only early competitor which the canon-compiling orthodox recalled.

We read about a John the Baptist rump group (Acts 19:2-7). The Gospels tell us that John the Baptist was active before Jesus, and gave Messianic teachings. Acts says that there was INSTANT integration of this JtB group into the apostolic fold. This comports with Acts suggestion that the two had been fairly similar in their teachings, the difference being largely the apostolics' claim of an earthly Jesus.

We also have Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). He may well be the same character as Paul speaks about (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:5-6, 22), but regardless, the canonical testimony about him is that he was an authority on the scriptures who refuted felllow Jews, establishing from scripture that the Christ was Jesus. He did so knowing about John the Baptist (see remarks above), and was active before speaking with representatives of the apostolics (Priscilla and Aquila).

As you know, I have my doubts about Richard Carrier, but hells bells, PA, that last bit is YOUR source telling me that there was a Jesus derived from scripture who was venerated BEFORE the Jerusalem church existed. That's the core of Carrier's mythicist hypothesis, from the pen of orthodoxy.

So, no, PA, the orthodox didn't get rid of all traces of their earliest competitors. On the contrary, they bragged about at least three conquests of contemporary or strictly earlier Christ-respecting movements.

This is not a "what if," this is what your witness testifies to. This is not all ancient history be damned if this one book of stories isn't fully believed, this is the orthodox canonical version of their own history. The Jerusalem apostolics were neither alone nor the earliest, according to their own supposed advocates.

-

Edited November 19, 2017 by eight bits

[+Hammerclaw]

To understand what Christianity became, one first has to understand the soil in which it took root and that was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is the foundation of Western Civilization--the very characters you see on your screen are Roman--after two thousand years we still use them. Roman architecture dominates much of official governmental structures, Washington D.C being a prime example. Roman law, customs, art and literature left a lasting impression, still felt today. Rome was the first modern civilization in the contemporary sense and it's polyglot society, the intermingling of disparate groups, peoples and cultures foreshadowed that of our own. It's marketplace of Faiths was riotous with competing doctrines beliefs, cults and religions, a veritable smorgasbord from which to pick and choose, each proclaiming itself holding the inside track to righteousness. One must remember that Christianity didn't become the dominate one by any divine manifest destiny, but by Imperial decree and it's order and consistency was imposed by the command of the Emperor.

[SHaYap]

Perhaps one should spare a thought for the Arians , and they were around much longer than History is comfortable acknowledging ...
 

Quote

 

~

HISTORY OF ARIANISM

www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac61

HISTORY OF ARIANISM including Alexandria and Arius, Nicaea and orthodoxy, Between two councils, Ulfilas and his alphabet, Heresy and the barbarians.

~

 

If things had gone on a bit differently back then, what we define today as 'Heretical' amongst all things Christian will be very different ...

~

[eight bits]

3ye

Yes, the Arians did come close to winning. Even for the logicians of religion, though, what could be more absurd than Arius' signature view, that some Father might have been older than his Son?

Just goes to show that you can "prove" anything from scripture.

Hammer

I fully agree with you that the watershed was when the Christianities became legal (313 onward in the Empire; implementation of the edict varied from place to place for a good long while), through he next two generations when they became the unique established church of the empire.

The giant Christian historical writer of that important time is Eusebius. There are a lot of things to say about Eusebius, but the most remarkable thing to me (and this observation isn't original with me) is how little primary source material he seems to have had to work with.

Presumably, a lot of documentary evidence just wasn't ever preserved. Not a lot about early Christianity that was unavailable to him has become available since his time. Much that was available to him has been lost except for his (and sometimes others) having quoted parts of it.

If Eusebius didn't have enough material to make strong evidence-based conclusions about what really happened during the mid-First Century in his chosen subject area, then we are fooling ourselves if we think we can do much better, almost a millennium and a half later than him.