Raf

Shifting a worldview is a little more traumatic than realizing you like La Bamba better than West Side Story. Realizing consciously that you're never going to pray again, coming to grips with the meaning of mortality, recognizing that [motives and intentions aside] prayer is a meaningless gesture... these are things that change how you live and how you approach your friends in need. It magnifies your appreciation for those who "give all" or risk all, especially those who do so with no expectation of eternal reward [news flash: there ARE atheists in foxholes]. So yeah, a change in "thought" can be a seismic event.

Or, as I mentioned, the change in belief can BE the traumatic event. Which is why so many keep it to themselves for so long.

I have to take this one only because I savor it so. The Silence of the Lambs.

Ok, first, we're looking at two things here that are very different. One: Can a person with a deeply held belief change his mind about it? Second: What would be the consequence of such a change from a particular theological framework? That is, can salvation be lost? The second question is clearly doctrinal, which is fine, but it is outside the scope of this thread, unless you want "nothing: salvation is a made-up solution to a made-up problem" to be within the realm of answers. Just kidding. But it is off topic for this thread (and possibly for this subforum). Back to question one, though: What would it take for someone with a deeply held belief to change his/her mind about it? I personally do not believe a "significant emotional event" is required, as there are [I suspect] too many exceptions to make the rule meaningful. I would more readily concede that such an event would easily work as a catalyst rather than a cause. I don't recall a specific catalyst in my life, but I can point to dozens of debates and discussions that caused me to be in a state of constantly "proving all things," which is to say, putting all things to the test. For me, the breaking point came after I could no longer reasonably accept a literal Biblical Adam and Eve in any meaningful sense, couldn't reconcile a regional flood with the Biblical account of Noah, couldn't find any evidence for Exodus that did not accept the account as true a priori, etc. This is personal to me and may in fact be a straw man, but I used to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was the best way of explaining why First Century believers, given the choice between renouncing their faith and death, chose death. Now, I know some people are willing to die for a cause I do not believe to be true. But I know of no one willing to die for a cause they know to be false. I mean, seriously, the majority of you would renounce my existence if the alternative was death, and you know I exist! So to tell a witness of the resurrected Christ to renounce it or die, and have him choose death, was always taken by me to be the strongest proof of the resurrection I could imagine. Except it never happened. And when I realized that, there was no turning back. Again, I'm oversimplifying it, and yes, there is a certain strawman element involved (which is why I am being clear that I am speaking for myself and my journey, not raising this is my "gotcha" evidence to persuade YOU of anything). However, if you want to go in depth on why I'm not persuaded by "what about the empty tomb?" I would be more than happy to engage on a separate thread. My bottom line is, none of this journey had anything to do with a significant emotional event. We ALL have traumatic significant emotional events in our lives, and they don't all result in a change of faith. Ad hoc, ergo procter hoc is a fallacy for a reason. What about when that person got sick and we all prayed and she died the next day? Or my kid's autism diagnosis? Or that other guy whose kid obviously had Down Syndrome but no one wanted to admit it? Or my sister's ALS diagnosis? Or my brother's sudden death? All traumatic. And some coincidentally close to my "deconversion." But catalysts at most. Certainly not causes.

I can name that tune in one. Oh, sorry. Too loud? I can name that tune in one.

I think Rocky could have been a little more generous than he was with the "there may be exceptions" observation. I know a good many people who changed their minds absent a specific "significant emotional event." For me, for example, the change WAS the significant emotional event. At some point, a person may decide to confront a degree of cognitive dissonance that had been building up for years. More tk

Yes

“Men should be explorers, no matter how old they are. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm going.” *** "With the way nature's been cheating us, I don't mind cheating her a little."

It's older than Twilight.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/entertainment/abe-vigoda-dead-obit-feat/index.html

Cast a wide net! I get it, because that's how you ... clever! Funny story how I ended up in the guy's obit, seeing as I never met him. They quoted me even though my connection to him was nothing personal.

The rug matches the curtains. So I guess that means they're telling the truth. But I still can't process it. So no. I feel better if they're lying, so I'm gonna stick with that.

I think if you look deep down, truth be told, the curtains weren't that red. I can't process it. Therefore it cannot be true. The curtains weren't red. They were lying. But that's my opinion.

By the way, nice to see you posting again, Oakspear!

"I don't want to live forever if you're not going to be with me." *** "But I promise you, you will all lead productive lives." "Forever?" "We don't know what forever is." *** "If this is foreplay, I'm a dead man."

Paul and his acolytes were never big on the intellectual legitimacy of [anything, really, but especially] dissent, were they? "Now the Spirit, being completely devoid of confidence and unable to hold its own in a rational discussion weighing the merits of its premises against observable facts, expressly states than in later times people who approach its claims honestly will scrutinize those claims and have legitimate reasons to conclude that they are, indeed, false, but unable to counter with facts we will demonize reason (and rationalists) as deceitful spirits, demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars and having a conscience seared with a hot iron. Because nothing like namecalling when you're almighty and STILL can't back up your claims with the facts." Fixed the verse for Paul. He can thank me at the Bema.

As a practicing moderator, I immediately reported myself and requested mod review. That should be the M.O. in doctrinal threads, a standard I have tried to uphold in various conversations. Comparing a doctrine to scripture should not require that a person believes in either the doctrine or the scripture. I can compare Marvel's Spider-Man characters with the MCU's Spider-Man characters and be able to say the MCU's Aunt May is considerably more attractive than its comic inspiration without a belief that Spider-Man and Aunt May actually exist. One can actually accept a "Law of Believing" in one way or another without believing the Bible! (At least, according to Victor Paul "But I Do Not Believe In Your Jesus" Wierwille). All views are ripe for consideration and exploration. And we can all agree there is no need to get cynical about other people's beliefs in a thread in which that is not the topic of conversation.

I don't know about TBone, but it's an open invite to TLC to ask honest questions.

Can a true believer truly change his mind and truly become an unbeliever. Irrefutably, the answer is yes. But a lot of folks think it's more complicated than that. I am automatically suspicious of anyone who says "I was an atheist, but the evidence changed my mind." Reason being, a lot of believers like to claim they were atheist when they really weren't. They were believers all along. But some people really were. And some people really were Christians, baptized speaking in tongues hallelujah singing crying at the right times, praying in private not to show off genuinely Christians, only to later change their minds. I'm sure you suspect they weren't really, but no, really, we were. So for those of us having trouble coming to grips with either change, what are your questions? How can believers and unbelievers help you understand that real change is possible, and it's not your place to deny us our journey?

Well, some are very different. But Rocky II was more a remake of Rocky than a sequel. The chicken gives away that it's II

This guy was my running joke for years. I'm even quoted in his CNN Obit.

Thanks for that perspective, OS. I'll just add that one cannot be respectful while rewriting someone else's past to conform with one's own preconceptions. You don't get to tell people who spent 40 years caring about little more than getting God right, who spent their lives in prayer and pursuit of the things of God, that their faith was simply not genuine, and then write that off as a plainly stated opinion. And then accuse ME of arrogance when I hold a mirror up to YOUR actions? [Not you, OS]. Horse hit. You don't get to rewrite my history and call it your opinion.

Anytime, bro. Let me know if there are any other uncomfortable truths you can't handle. Be more than happy to serve you a little more of what you're dishing out, just to see your shocked SHOCKED reaction.

This one was for me. I'm dead. Oh my this is funny Wait, am I dead? Yet? Yet? Yet? Ok, for real...

Oh come on, people. Not one of these clues is smooth! Reminds me of a movie that was very much like it.