Charity

4 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

The Sharpton debate is my least favorite, because, well, Sharpton. If you can tolerate William Lane Craig's grating tone, that one is decent. Hitch always said Dinesh D'Souza was his most formidable opponent - those debates are good and lively. There are many more worth watching, but the one with Frank Turek is the most fun for me.

 

I'll have to watch this debate a second time since so much was covered.  Turek's religious arguments concerning God were basically "everything is man's fault" (which is nothing new) so he fell well short when opposing Hitchens' arguments.  However, much of Turek's rapid science speak for the existence of God went over my head, so I'm wondering if from memory, you think Hitchens effectively debunked any of his assertions.  Just a general yes or no is all I'm looking for since I plan to watch the video again.

52 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

The Sharpton debate is my least favorite, because, well, Sharpton. If you can tolerate William Lane Craig's grating tone, that one is decent. Hitch always said Dinesh D'Souza was his most formidable opponent - those debates are good and lively. There are many more worth watching, but the one with Frank Turek is the most fun for me.

 

I'm looking forward to watching the Turek one then.

On 5/7/2024 at 12:23 PM, Rocky said:

My admonition: stay curious.

I just ran across this reference to a new book dealing with an aspect of deconverting: (From the Amazon blurb)

A gripping memoir about coming of age in the stay-at-home daughter movement and the quest to piece together a future on your own terms.
 
Raised in the Christian patriarchy movement, Cait West was homeschooled and could only wear clothes her father deemed modest. She was five years old the first time she was told her swimsuit was too revealing, to go change. There would be no college in her future, no career. She was a stay-at-home daughter and would move out only when her father allowed her to become a wife. She was trained to serve men, and her life would never be her own.  
 
Until she escaped.  
 
In Rift, Cait West tells a harrowing story of chaos and control hidden beneath the facade of a happy family. Weaving together lyrical meditations on the geology of the places her family lived with her story of spiritual and emotional manipulation as a stay-at-home daughter, Cait creates a stirring portrait of one young woman’s growing awareness that she is experiencing abuse. With the ground shifting beneath her feet, Cait mustered the courage to break free from all she’d ever known and choose a future of her own making. 
 
Rift is a story of survival. It’s also a story about what happens after you survive. With compassion and clarity, Cait explores the complex legacy of patriarchal religious trauma in her life, including the ways she has also been complicit in systems of oppression. A remarkable literary debut, Rift offers an essential personal perspective on the fraught legacy of purity culture and recent reckonings with abuse in Christian communities.

I've only recently become aware of the "Christian" doctrine of purity culture from some of the people sharing their deconversion stories.  Both males and females speak of the harmful impact it has on them as the topic of sexuality is very sin/shame based.  

It would be interesting to read Cait's story and see how she was able to heal from such an upbringing.  Thanks for recommending it. 

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

 

This reminds me of one of my favorite exchanges between Hitch and a zealot…

 

I watched the whole debate, and Sharpton repeatedly criticized Hitchens for talking about horrendous deeds done by those who believe in God (while not addressing Hitchens biblical references of God doing much the same).  Instead, he wanted Hitchens to talk about God Himself, apart from the bible, whom Sharpton believes exists because of intelligent design and his personal experiences with Him. 

IMO, Sharpton's dismissal of the bible shows he has a "Build-a-God" mindset.  I guess I am late to the party on recognizing how acceptable this has become. 

9 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Sorry for the confusion. I assure you, we are on the same page. As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear a glove. Mmmph.

- Well explained!

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

The question is: What is the difference between a duck?

Most people say, between a duck and what? Those people don’t understand the question.

Waysider understands perfectly. He answered with a mathematical accuracy and a scientific precision not know since…

I took your question to mean there is no difference - a duck is a duck; and an atheist is no different from a made-up god because there is no "real" god in either case.

Now if you and Waysider would like to stop communicating in a way that one has to guess what you're getting at (much like Jesus did when he used parables ), that would be honky-dory (satisfactory, first-rate, excellent) .  

36 minutes ago, waysider said:

Five. Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

Not sure what the five means but the answer seems to be you do both at the same time. 

7 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

 

This reminds me of one of my favorite exchanges between Hitch and a zealot…

 

Thank you for the clip .  I found the whole debate and will watch it later.

1 minute ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Is that like asking: What’s the difference between a duck?

You get my point then.

On 5/10/2024 at 10:21 PM, Raf said:

This has always been my favorite deconversion story. 

This is Julia Sweeney, who played the Androgynous "Pat" on Saturday Night Live. 

 

The video is a great example of the deconstruction that leads to deconversion.  And although the emotions she displays are part of her comedic monologue, they are nonetheless a real part of the process of letting go of God.

Ex: @ 51:30 - 53:40

Build-A-Bear Workshop is a fun-filled store where you will make a new best friend. Choose from more than 25 different animals priced from $12 to $27. Stuff your furry friend, make a wish and give it a heart. Dress it in over 250 outfits and accessories. Name it and make a personalized birth certificate or storybook.

What is the difference between an atheist (who believes neither in a god or in the bible) and a non-fundamentalist (who "builds" a god through a subjective selection of which scriptures they interpret favorably)? 

IOW, what is the difference between a non-existent god and a made-up god?

5 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Says who? Pleasing unto which lord?

Plus, to/for. ThIs was written TO the angel of the ekklesia in Laodicea. It was not written TO you. 

The fact that Jesus would say to any believer, at any time or any place, that he would spit them out of his mouth for being lukewarm is sick stuff.  

Besides, there are plenty of other verses in the gospels where Jesus lays out what it takes to be a follower of his and being lukewarm is nowhere in the mix.

I just finished quickly reading through a prophecy given by an old poster on this forum.  I am sharing his website if anyone is interested in reading it.  On it, there is also a link for his YouTube channel where he reads the prophecy.

https://www.eyesupandopen.org/index.php/prophecies-from-jesus-christ/sinners-come-to-me-in-this-last-time

Why am I sharing it?  Because it shows how two Christians, who became close online friends over the past year and a half ago, went in two extreme opposite directions within the past two months - me deciding to walk away from Christianity and him starting to share his fundamentalist prophecies online. 

I'm pretty sure most on this thread will reject this all-or-nothing way of thinking.  So what is left?  How does one decide for themselves which parts are allegories, fiction, myths, hyperboles, etc. and still believe the Bible is God's word? 

As it was pointed out to me in Revelation 3:15-22, being lukewarm is not pleasing unto the Lord. 

1 hour ago, Raf said:

Nobody goes through deconversion. They only realize they've gone through it. We don't set out to lose faith. It just happens and we realize it almost after the fact. 

Deprogramming imposes a change of belief from without. Deconversion takes place within. It is slow and steady right up until the end, when the cognitive dissonance between what you believe and what you call yourself becomes unbearable.

The final "decision" is conscious, but it's after-the-fact. By the time you call yourself an unbeliever, the believing is long gone. 

My entire journey played out in front of all of you. You can see it in the arguments I made and in the arguments I stopped making. 

Afterward, there was a period of reflection, retracing steps, realizing where, when and how things changed.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Raf.  On the Harmonic Atheist podcast, I have watched a wide range of people tell their deconversion story from when they first started believing right through to the end - just as you described above.   The videos are usually between 90-120 minutes long as their journey was never cut and dry.  I think of what it must have been like for you to share and discuss your thoughts and feelings about the process you were going through at the time.   It could not have been easy yet it must have been helpful.  I give you much credit for doing so.

P.S. I forgot to mention how I often can relate to what was being shared on these podcasts.

1 hour ago, Ham said:

"Deconversion" sounds a heck of a lot like "deprogramming".   

 

One cannot abandon the support that the last step of the ladder afforded one.. sorry, you really were not there..

 

 

No, deconversion is done voluntarily.

Really not where?

1 hour ago, Raf said:

"I don't know" is a solid humanist response. I would say that we, as humanists, have no basis for knowing how the earth, the universe and matter came to be. 

There are multiple explanations that could be compatible with humanism. I'm partial to "Who ever said the universe was ever in a state of nothing?"

On another note, I think the realization that we are one species among millions living one one planet among trillions circling one star among trillions and that there is nothing cosmically special about us... I don't know about you, but I would consider that position as far from "arrogant" as can be conceived. It's certainly less arrogant than "the creator who shaped the rings of Saturn and makes it rain diamonds on Jupiter has a deep interest in where I put my penis."

 

Your last sentence deserves a and made me each of the dozen times I reread it.  Okay, I knew about Saturn but had to google the diamonds raining on Jupiter part - very cool.  Among all the endings though that could have made your point, your choice is an entertainingly creative one.  

7 hours ago, cman said:

How do humanist account for creation? Certainly there is some explaining about how earth came to be.

 

Here are a couple of quotes from the website Raf shared in an earlier post from the American Humanist Association called What is Humanism.

- Humanists seek to understand the universe by using science and its methods of critical inquiry-logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and skeptical evaluation of conjectures and conclusions-to obtain reliable knowledge. (Steven Schafersman)

- Humanism considers the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature...Because science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, I think Humanism can include more than atheists and agnostics. The lack of definite answers to these ultimate questions leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe, and even to hope for some form of life beyond this one...Thus, in my opinion, people holding such views can be Humanists if they believe that humanity is on its own in this world, and the lack of any evidence for an afterlife means this life should be lived as though it’s the only one we have. (Joseph C. Sommer)

9 hours ago, chockfull said:

 

Why is a “deconversion “ necessary?

It seems like those are folks that still need to break the bonds of the fundamentalist cult before building their lives in a constructive fashion.

I certainly don’t need that.  The Christianity I accepted in my youth is still sound and solid and nothing like the bondage of TWI.  I can and do point out their doctrinal and practical errors.

What I dislike is the ego shown in viewpoints.  It seems like a “dog in the manger” approach.  We can’t eat any of the hay but we are going to bark at all the cows to keep them away from the hay.

I am growing to understand OldSkools perspective on sharing from a perspective that will not be respected.

 

Deconversion isn't about walking away from a cult.  After leaving twi, people began analyzing what they were taught and deciding which doctrines to discard and which to keep all the while retaining their Christian beliefs.  That is called deconstructing.  Deconversion is walking away from that belief along with believing in the entire book it is based on.  

Regarding your "dog in the manger" idiom and connecting it with egotistical viewpoints you say have been shown on this thread, I don't think that is an accurate statement.  I have disagreed with your position on scripture and your explanations of some verses, but I don't think I have criticized you personally for sharing them.  If I have, I apologize.  But simply having disagreements doesn't mean someone is being egotistical or disrespectful. 

Oldskool, by the way, was not referring to comments made on the "Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith" forum. 

On 5/3/2024 at 12:39 PM, chockfull said:

I don’t read that at all in those verses.

Hebrews 11:6 - I mean is this just common logic ?  If you don’t believe in a magical character how would you possibly try to please a magical character?

James 1:5-6 ask God for wisdom

If you don’t believe in a God why would you ever ask Him for wisdom?  Again rocket science 101.

And now that you don’t believe in God you are saying making basic logical statements shows an unloving God?

I disagree.  I read it those verses as simple logical statements with logical conclusions.

What rock and what hard place is it that you find yourself in either way?

Want some more rocket science 101?

If you  never read the Bible you won’t understand the Bible.

If you read the Bible and don’t believe in a God it probably isn’t going to be that interesting and you probably won’t read it much.

But a fundamentalist, hand in a glove absolutist?  Yeah that’s what wrecks the Bible and any inspirational truth.  And places believers in bondage.  And drives them away completely.

Goodbye baby.  Goodbye bathwater.

Adults and showers only now!

I am gonna back out of this channel now and let you all continue.  
 

 

On 5/3/2024 at 4:00 PM, Charity said:

 

On 5/4/2024 at 12:57 PM, chockfull said:

Trying to respond to this I think a previous response somehow showed up missing.

What I find ironic is someone with no belief in any inspiration in scripture telling me to “look deeper” into scripture.

 

 No my remark is not snarky it is in the practical realm.

What is pleasing God?  It varies per individual but to me it involves seeking out a virtuous life.  I like my life better seeking out virtue than I do trying to parse over some VPW regurgitation of manifestations in a book he stole or “the law of believing” which actually I think we’ve shown to have spiritualist origins here on GSC.

Does God “always” provide wisdom when I ask?  I think so, whether it is in the form of the word of a friend, a sunrise, an idea, an observation about nature, a secular writing striking me in a way, or about a hundred other practical ways I could mention.

But to you He is “an unloving Father” because of how you interpret Gen 2 & 3 and are stuck on VPW believing fantasy and some idiot who is blabbing about devil spirits in a medical situation.

Yeah I get it.  It’s always the hypocrites that drive people away from churches and they are everywhere.

But what do you want to build in your life?  Tearing down idols is only half of a renovation project.

On 5/4/2024 at 8:51 PM, chockfull said:

I view Gen 2 and 3 as allegorical illustrating freedom of choice between good and evil that is available to every living soul.

You most certainly are interpreting it in a fundamentalist sense from my perspective.

Faith means different things in the Bible I think most count 5 usages.

The idea of devil spirits is upsetting.  Having spiritual causes of illnesses is upsetting.  Mental illnesses which can look like devil spirits are upsetting.  Being sick is upsetting.  Cancer and chemo is upsetting.  VP said cancer was a devil spirit.  Then he died of it.

What .... doctrine are you talking about?  Those records in the gospels are Jesus healing a couple kids by removing a spiritual cause of the illness?

So healing the kids was ....?  Dang that is real cynical.  Not a view I want to share at all.

On 5/5/2024 at 9:32 AM, chockfull said:

The way you are inserting comments into my quote makes it impossible to answer any of your questions inline and I’m not cutting and pasting every one of them from all over everywhere.  If I’m not answering all your questions that is why.

So much of this is Christianity 101.

God as Creator was not a dictator so he did not interfere in His creation every microsecond but set up systems where people could choose to talk to Him or not.

Those who do He helps but not in a direct interference way for the most part.  Certain circumstances dictate miracles such as those we read of Jesus on earth.

Mankind has arrived at whatever state he is in through his own choice. Yes this is allegorical as today people also arrive at their own state through their own choice.

What other parts of the Bible are allegorical?  A lot of them.  Even VPs teaching highlights verses with “figures of speech” as different from a direct reading.  Remember the whole Athletes of the Spirit debacle with TWI taking figurative language to a new low?

With respect to the devil spirit comments you are choosing to be confused as you don’t believe they exist.  From your mouth.

Jesus healed children by removing a spiritual cause of their illness.  At least that is what seems pretty clear in those verses.

Your grandson has a known mental condition that has negative and positive ramifications.  This is not a devil spirit.  This is not a spiritual cause.  

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

So now for my questions.

What was Jesus doing to those children if not healing them?  If he wasn’t removing a spiritual cause then the only other logical conclusion would involve some form of mental child abuse.  Is that what you believe happened?

I am not gaslighting anything.  I am commenting on words proceeding from your own mouth.  If it’s not gas coming out of your mouth how can it be lit on fire?

On 5/5/2024 at 9:21 PM, chockfull said:

I guess this is called “personification” where you take all of the negative elements you experienced from a cult, label man’s abuse as God being an abusive partner, and equate some form of leaving Christianity as leaving an abusive marriage arrangement.

Your life your business.  Not a path that has the slightest interest for me.

If you are saying I’m living in denial I think maybe the mirror would point 3 fingers back at yourself.  You are equating fundamentalism and more specifically the specific bondage of TWI with scripture and all of Christianity.  “If that is as far as you want to go” that is the height of ego to think that I am refusing to “go deeper” or some BS you still have ingrained from cult fundamentalism.  Being a scribe or a Pharisee is not “going deeper” as accurately illustrated by my Lords interaction with them.

The vast majority of all Christians consider TWI a cult and VPs teachings to be self aggrandizing plagiarism.  

So was Jesus abusing those children he cast spirits out of?  Still waiting on that answer.  What does your “going deeper” tell you there?

8 hours ago, chockfull said:

 

Chockfull, If any of your posts you think are missing were to me, I have quoted the ones I have received above.  Do you find one or more of these ones are missing?

4 hours ago, Twinky said:

 

(What worries me is that this is continuing into space, with people now wanting to mine the moon and asteroids - as if someone has rights to those, hahahaha.) (But that thought is way off topic.)

 

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."  (good pun)

Well if anyone does, I hope they don't displace whoever might be there already.  Or if they're the first, I hope they share.

10 hours ago, Twinky said:

The way I've always understood this is: 

God grants a chunk of land to certain peoples whom he favours, to keep them safe and to give them a base. 

Also, he had a plan for redemption and that plan needed a safe place for the Promised Seed to be raised in safety, surrounded by safe people.  A "layette," if you like, in modern parlance.  A baby cot, perhaps.

As the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God himself says that he will clear it as they advanced; they would not have to fight for it.  Deut 2 sets out some of this, but there is much in the early chapters of the Bible on this theme.  In fact, the Israelites never fully, properly, occupied all of the land that was promised to them.  The far northern part was never fully realised.

In the parts where they lived, farmed, prospered, the Israelites were to be an example to the nations around them.  They were to welcome strangers (reminding them that they were once strangers in a strange land - Egypt), and allow them to live in their land, their community, without harassment.  The Israelites were to have no king, no "boss man" but were to look to God as their leader and protector.  They were not supposed to have horses etc and put their trust in material defences.  They were to look to the Lord and pray for his protection. 

Time progressed, they demanded a king, some of the Israelites fell away, and God had to narrow his vision to protecting the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.  

From time to time, the ancient tribes were captured and carried off to foreign lands - perhaps a forerunner to events millennia later?  They took with them their culture, their beliefs, their lifestyle.  That they spread the gospel as they understood it is clear from other OT records.  For example: Daniel was carried off to Babylon, rose to high rank, and is credited with teaching that lasted at least until the magi/astronomers came to see the baby Jesus.  Another example: Naaman, army commander in the army in Aram, was a leper.  His slave girl told him to seek help from the prophet of Israel.  Thus we see that the wider outreach of God's love is being spoken about and demonstrated. 

Eventually the Promised Seed was born, lived, and died.  Purpose for the "layette" achieved.

 

But I do not think this is the only reason for no longer holding the "promised land."  God wants his name known everywhere.  He wants his people to be an example of how to live righteously according to his standards.  Jesus sent his disciples throughout Israel to spread the gospel, to bring it first to the chosen people.  He even sent his first tranche of disciples out without any weaponry, and strictly forbids that. 

But later, he knows that the gospel is to spread throughout the world, not restricted to a small group of people, but to show that God's love is for, and available to, all.  A small middle eastern piece of land was no longer sufficient to hold the chosen people; God is (re)claiming the whole earth for himself for his chosen people.  Disciples now are to be the "salt of the earth," salt representing commitment.  Salt in a big heap isn't much good and turns the land sour.  It's poisonous.  Salt in small quantities, sprinkled in food, is good for preservation, flavour, enjoyment.

 

Do we want to keep our baby cot?  Maybe, as a relic and a reminder. Maybe even treasure it, as we might treasure our childhood teddy bear or blankie.  But it's served its purpose.
Do we want to return to, to stay, in our baby cot?  Nah, life is much richer than that.

 

Do I say that the land currently known as Israel should not exist?  No, I am not saying that.  There is much that could be said, but this is not the place for that.
I am carefully refraining from political comment on the land currently known as Israel and the situation therein; I'm just looking at the historical roots and later background of the promise. 

From the time which you started from in your post to the present day, religion (and the accompanying idea that one leader of a group of people has the right to declare their people superior over another) have been the reasons for wars, inquisitions, persecutions, forced emigration, etc., all of which were and are still crimes against humanity.

Seriously, why could a supreme, loving, all-powerful spiritual being not come up with a quicker way of bringing about a "messiah," like say right away instead of 4,000 years later?

I think the ideas in the song "Imagine" are more humane than the above bedtime story which whitewashes the wars, infanticides, genocides and slavery of POW's in the OT.

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

Got it, thx.

You're welcome oldiesman.

16 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Charity, if you decide to try any other religion(s) please post about it; would be interested in hearing about your experience. 

I'm reading about humanism for now. 

3 minutes ago, Rocky said:

My admonition: stay curious.

I just ran across this reference to a new book dealing with an aspect of deconverting: (From the Amazon blurb)

A gripping memoir about coming of age in the stay-at-home daughter movement and the quest to piece together a future on your own terms.
 
Raised in the Christian patriarchy movement, Cait West was homeschooled and could only wear clothes her father deemed modest. She was five years old the first time she was told her swimsuit was too revealing, to go change. There would be no college in her future, no career. She was a stay-at-home daughter and would move out only when her father allowed her to become a wife. She was trained to serve men, and her life would never be her own.  
 
Until she escaped.  
 
In Rift, Cait West tells a harrowing story of chaos and control hidden beneath the facade of a happy family. Weaving together lyrical meditations on the geology of the places her family lived with her story of spiritual and emotional manipulation as a stay-at-home daughter, Cait creates a stirring portrait of one young woman’s growing awareness that she is experiencing abuse. With the ground shifting beneath her feet, Cait mustered the courage to break free from all she’d ever known and choose a future of her own making. 
 
Rift is a story of survival. It’s also a story about what happens after you survive. With compassion and clarity, Cait explores the complex legacy of patriarchal religious trauma in her life, including the ways she has also been complicit in systems of oppression. A remarkable literary debut, Rift offers an essential personal perspective on the fraught legacy of purity culture and recent reckonings with abuse in Christian communities.

Thanks Rocky.  I'm giving it all a rest.  I'll check in for topics of interest though and perhaps post about those. 

Here’s what I know.  My life is healthier since walking away from Christianity.  It's healthier mentally and emotionally which is inspiring me to work on being healthier physically.  It has freed up my time since there is no longer a need/desire to work on a 24/7 relationship with a god that supposedly wanted one with me. 

I’m now going to let go of the need/desire to learn more about why the bible was not inspired by any kind of God.  Simply put, I want to be able to stop thinking about god to the extent that only the rare thought will pop into my head and then quickly dissipate.

Thanks everyone for your input – it was much appreciated!