deconversion

15 Comments

• 

  by Mystery Porcupine 1 month ago

  I think honesty is always the best policy. If you have come to a conclusion about Christianity that is very unlikely to change, you can make that clear to your friend in an honest and loving way. Sometimes we have to practice phrasing this in different ways so that it gets through. I think many Christians are so sincere in their beliefs that they cannot imagine that they are not true or that we would not be convinced by them.
  
  One way I have shut down debate is by telling a friend that in order to discuss my de-conversion with her, I would have to explain to her the logical process that I went through. And I could get even more detailed about many specific theological issues that I have questioned. That could involve bringing up a lot of issues that she would then have to wrestle with about the faith. I basically told her I didn't want to do that and I didn't think she wanted to go there. And she told me I was right and stopped pushing!
  
  I had to get more...blunt...with my mom and explain several times that what I am going through is not a phase, that it has been a long-time coming, that it has been a logical process.
  
  I think with your friend you could use some of that material along with the fact that you could debate him on articles, but that it would be a tedious process that you think would ultimately just be frustrating for both of you. So you can tell him that you are touched that he cares so much that he wants to draw you into the faith, but that faith cannot be forced or faked, and that you just don't have it.
  
  Basically, I don't think you should debate something that you don't want to debate. If you are coming to peace about where you are, that is what matters. If he has specific questions that he needs answered so that he can understand you better, that's one thing. But debating whatever Christian articles he happens to find is not the same at all. You can nourish the friendship by answering personal questions without getting into all the rest.
• 

  by Mystery Porcupine 1 month ago

  Well, I take my first sentence back. Honesty is not ALWAYS the best policy, as honesty can mean revealing too much. I have definitely learned that the hard way. But in a situation like this, when the person is a real friend, as much honesty as can be helpful is good. :)
• 

  by atimetorend 1 month ago

  "Answering these skeptics, however, is not always so easy as one might expect."
  
  There's the problem with the article, right in the 5th paragraph. Why is the goal to answer the skeptics, rather than engage with the scholarly material? The presupposition is that the exodus story is true, and it needs to be defended. That is Evangelicalism's fundamentalist roots saying the bible is true/inerrant, let's work from there. And it makes dialog along those lines nearly impossible.
  
  I have found it helpful when receiving literature like that from friends to read it, or at least give it a skim, and figure out philosophically where I disagree and return it with a very general description of my disagreement. I don't know if I have ever gotten into a nuts and bolts discussion with friends at that point. But I'm personally not in it to argue, I know others are and are very good at it. I guess what I am saying is I like to engage friends on things like that to a very small degree, where I think there can be fruitful dialog. And to do that you have to talk about the assumptions made when reading an article, not the details of the article itself.
  
  As an aside, it looks like a very interesting article, I will read the rest of it later on. There is just a real lack of evidence available for those biblical stories. On one hand there is no archaeological evidence. There are a lot of scholars who take a more realistic approach, neither expecting the bible stories to be proven true by archaeological evidence, nor expecting an absence of evidence to prove them false. It looks like the CT article is attacking a bit of a strawman by saying the minimalists are trying to prove too much with the absence of evidence. Likely they are, and some are biased or agenda driven, but there is a host of less biased or unbiased scholars looking at things pragmatically and argreeing with many if not all of the minimalist arguments. William Dever is cited in the article because he refutes the minimalists. But Dever himself would says that he in no way believes all the biblical stories are true.
• 

  by LeoPardus 1 month ago

  I think the thing that needs to be gotten past with Christians who want to pull us back, is the fact that we are NOT coming back. This basically means starting by dismissing the objection, "Do you mean to tell me that no matter what I say, your mind is made up?" The answer of course is, "Yes. Nothing you can say, or write, will make me come back to the faith. Why? Because no matter what you say, all you will have is so much blah, blah, blah. You still won't have an actual deity. Until you can come with an actual, working deity, your lousy apologetics for believing in a do-nothing, ineffective, imaginary friend are meaningless."
  
  At that point, your Christian friends should give up. Of course they'll probably try to pull some apologetic about why you can't hold that position, but oh well; at least you've put everything out in the open.
  
  I suppose the only real reason to engage in the discussion is in hopes that the Christian will open his/her eyes to reality.
• 

  by Eve's Apple 1 month ago

  Basically, I wouldn't. I'm with LeoPardus on that. Have you ever noticed that God is always discussed--even by believers--in the third person, never in the first person? Unless someone is praying, God is never brought directly into the conversation. It's all discussions about God, not discussions including God. And why is that? Why do people talk about someone in the third person? Because that person is not present at the time! But God is supposed to be present at all times. So why don't we just stop talking about him and let him speak for himself?
  
  Ok, God, here's your chance . . .
• 

  by Infidel 1 month ago

  Eve,
  You're not holding your breath are you? I'm just saying... If god were to speak to you I would be pissed because that is all I wanted for years!
  
  Atimetorid,
  I took another look at the paragraph you cited and the very next sentence was the admission that there is no evidence. But that's not going to stop them, no sir!
  
  What pissed me off about the article was the condescending language and anecdotal stories told about skeptics. How we are called closed minded for not believing. I kept screaming at the article, "the burden of proof is on YOU!!!" I don't have to disprove anything. You assert that the stories are true, prove it. Shooting holes in the skeptic's theories does not validate yours!"
  
  What is so frigging hard to understand? Don't they get it? If mere assertion of a truth is proof of the truth, then they serve a self-contradictory god because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all true simultaneously.
• 

  by Eve's Apple 1 month ago

  No, I certainly am not holding my breath. But why shouldn't God take an active part in the conversation? Anyway the article sounds a lot like the Emperor's New Clothes. No, they can't get it, because that would mean that they had been living their life according to a lie. As a priest once told me when I confessed to doubts, "I bet my life on it (that there is a god and the church was true)." And that's basically what these people have done, is that they have bet their lives on it. They aren't going to take kindly to the idea that they were duped. It's really hard to walk away if that is your whole support system.
• 

  by Infidel 1 month ago

  "It's really hard to walk away if that is your whole support system."
  
  I can certainly attest to that. It was very hard to walk away. Not only because of relationships in the church, but because of, as you say, the realization that everything I have believed and therefore practiced, how I lived my life, the values I held, all of it, was based on a lie.
• 

  by Eve's Apple 1 month ago

  I don't know if you are familiar with Joni Eareckson Tada, the paralyzed artist who paints with her mouth. Anyway, in one of her books she talks about how a movie was made of her life, and the resulting effect it had on her faith. From what I understand, she lived (and still does) in a fundamentalist Christian bubble where socializing with anyone outside of that group is strongly discouraged. Except that when it came time to make the movie she was thrown into contact with people who did not share her beliefs, and it really challenged her. She started to think critically for perhaps the first time in her life. She found herself going to church and evaluating sermons. And it frightened her. So she drew back to the comfort of the cocoon, and God rewarded her with a husband who didn't seem to mind that she was paralyzed from the neck down. Course that was some years ago, I don't know if they are still living happily ever after. But while I was disappointed with Joni's response (for one thing, I think her attitude towards the outside "world" severely diminishes the credibility of her efforts to speak out on behalf of the handicapped, sort of like the Amish telling Detroit how to build cars), I can certainly understand it. For if it is terrifying enough to leave the faith if you are able-bodied, how much more would it be if you are physically dependent upon the group? (If I understand correctly, they bought her her van, and other things). I feel very sorry for her, because I think she has traded away her birthright; but how much choice does she really have?
• 

  by Infidel 1 month ago

  Well, I did it.
  
  I read, researched, critiqued and just sent the article back to my friend with my comments.
  
  I had to rewrite some of my comments to keep it civil.
  
  I'll write as soon as I hear back from him.
• 

  by FFFearlesss 1 month ago

  It's an interesting irony to note how Christian fundamentalists will point to an incomplete fossil record as "proof" that evolution is false, but will point to missing critical historical documents as just stuff we haven't found yet... and I suppose a lot of atheists will do the exact them thing only vice versa.
  
  Moderately intriguing article, though honestly I had a hard time keeping track of the names and who was on what side. I personally never went so deep into Old Testament history when making up my mind to deconvert. I did find a lot of the lack of historical evidence for Jesus (as he's portrayed in the Bible) to be troublesome though really it was the stuff that the gospel writers left out of each others' stories that bothered me most... that coupled with pretty much the whole book of Genesis which, taken completely out of context, sounds no less a myth than the best of Greek mythology.
• 

  by Infidel 1 month ago

  Fearless,
  
  I commented several times to my friend that Christians need to apply the same level of skepticism to the bible that they do to evolution, islam, buddahism, etc.
  
  It is funny that the will rightly be skeptical about unproven claims and yet when it comes to the bible, they fight tooth and nail defending it's "truth".
• 

  by Scootwes 1 month ago

  I like what Leo Pardus said: "Nothing you can say, or write, will make me come back to the faith. Why? Because no matter what you say, all you will have is so much blah, blah, blah. "
  
  I would like to go one step further, and say to the christian trying to pull me back into the fold:
  "After 46 years as a blood-bought, spirit-filled, bible-thumping, ex-missionary evangelical myself, there is NOTHING you will say that I haven't heard before, in fact that I haven't said myself in trying to win apostates back into the fold. TELL ME SOMETHING THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD AND SAID BEFORE MYSELF."
• 

  by FarAwayDeb 28 days ago

  For a long time I was actually afraid NOT to believe. That whole hell-fire and damnation thing. I didn't "think" there was a god, but what if I was wrong? I still have times when I think, geez, I hope I'm right, I hope you guys are right, because we're all gonna be in deep shit if we're wrong!
• 

  by Infidel 27 days ago

  Deb,
  No one can convince you. You have to look at the evidence or lack thereof and make your own decision.
  
  For me, there was no evidence and there continues to be none. I started with Joseph, Moses and the exodus because I think that everything about Christianity and Judaism hinges on the truth of the giving of the Torah. The events that led to the giving of the Torah was the exodus. The exodus wouldn't have happened if there was no Moses and there would have been no Moses if there had been no Joseph. I stopped there because things get really murky prior to Joseph. Plus, I figured that surely there would be evidence of someone as prominent as Joseph.
  
  I was sorely disappointed. Christian web sites only offered excuses as to why there was no evidence of any of this. I kept thinking that if there WAS some type of proof, why don't they produce it and shut the critics up? Because there is no proof despite 200+ years of searching.
  
  That was it for me because I viewed the Torah as foundational to all of Judaism and Christianity. Destroy the Torah and you have nothing left. For me, the Torah was destroyed. And even though I continue to read on the subject, I have yet to find a Christian site that can reasonably prove that any of the OT events happened.
  
  I said all of that to say there's nothing to fear. There is no hell. It is just another religious myth. That's all.
  
  Relax. Breath deep. Enjoy life.