Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

My deconversion story


Paranoid Android

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

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.

Not, surprising, since Christianity was a religion long before it became formalized as literature, with many post first century additions, amendments and interpolations added to it by subsequent generations of ministers and scholars. Rome--and I mean the Empire, not just the city--had an abiding fascination with "Eastern Mystery Cults" long before the rise of Christianity. Judaism was evangelical in nature in that era and there were millions of proselyte Jews spread out across the Empire. It was the fertile ground the apostles first preached their message to and only later were pure gentiles incorporated into the mix.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

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.

Well we do have to bear in mind that Rome was as much Juno and Bacchus during those formative years ... Paul's stomping grounds as it were ...

~

 

Edited by third_eye
gotta git me a new keybooard
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another form of Christianity, uniquely different and condemned as a gnostic heresy by the Church, was Catharism, which arose early in the second millennium in Europe.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism                               

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cathars are, of course, fascinating, and over the years there have been a few discussions of them here at UM. One of the remarks made in the Wiki article is especially relevant to the discussion PA and I were having about religious history:

Quote

Starting in the 1990s and continuing to the present day, historians like R.I Moore have radically challenged the extent to which Catharism, as an institutionalized religion, actually existed. Building on the work of French historians such as Monique Zerner and Uwe Brunn, Moore's The War on Heresy argues that Catharism was "contrived from the resources of [the] well-stocked imaginations’ of churchmen, with occasional reinforcement from miscellaneous and independent manifestations of local anticlericalism or apostolic enthusiasm."

Whether or not this is literally true of the Cathars, it documents a process where an institution can build an imagined past that thereafter is hardly distinguishable from genuine history. If an institution can imagine a history for its enemies, then so, too, can it imagine its own history.

This appears (to me anyway) to be the process used by Eusebius to construct a foundational history for his church. He had little else besides imagination, since the movement's actual early chronciles were largely long lost by his time.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

The Cathars are, of course, fascinating, and over the years there have been a few discussions of them here at UM. One of the remarks made in the Wiki article is especially relevant to the discussion PA and I were having about religious history:

Whether or not this is literally true of the Cathars, it documents a process where an institution can build an imagined past that thereafter is hardly distinguishable from genuine history. If an institution can imagine a history for its enemies, then so, too, can it imagine its own history.

This appears (to me anyway) to be the process used by Eusebius to construct a foundational history for his church. He had little else besides imagination, since the movement's actual early chronciles were largely long lost by his time.

Yes, word-of-mouth and a smattering of documents of uncertain origin are the foundation on which the Church is built. It's corpus of ecclesiastical knowledge is based mostly on speculations assumed to be divinely inspired.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2017 at 10:57 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 ;) 

For me PA...and Welcome back!   for me...it was realizing that for the vast majority...we believe what we are taught from birth.

I call it The Birth Box.  In order to actually come to grips with Real Truth...I found it necessary to exit the Birth Box and look and seek Truth from outside of that Belief System that was taught from birth.   I realize that it is very hard to do...but for me it was absolutely necessary.

What I walked away with was that the real truth of God...if you want to stay with at least one foot in the box...is physics.

Physics says that Jesus didn't walk on water...didn't turn water into wine...was not born of a virgin...and did not rise from the dead.

I consider nonetheless myself a Christian...because MY definition of Christian is simply a follower of the teachings of Jesus.

At any rate...I am not hoping you become an Atheist...because...that is a Birth Box all of its own...and I encourage people to seek the Truth...not the Birth Box of another Belief system.

It's good to hear your words again PA! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

Good luck with your addiction kicking. May you find a hobby, or positive interest to Geek over to pull you through.

Psychology only takes one so far. Check out Dr. Volkow if interested?

"Doctor Nora Volkow MD, research psychiatrist and scientist, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), discusses what goes in in the human brain when an individual is addicted to drugs. From the US Senate Forum on Addiction, December 2, 2014. Doctor Volkow discusses the prevalence of drug use, the economic burden of substance abuse and what science now knows about what goes on in the brain when we are addicted. She uses brain imaging to investigate the toxic effects and addictive properties of abusable drugs. She studies changes in the dopamine system which affect the functions of the frontal brain regions involved with motivation, drive and pleasure in addiction."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.