de-conversion

58 Comments Add your own

• 1. weliftthemup  |  May 16, 2007 at 12:05 am

  OR the Catholic belief of Topography is true and the Old Testament predicts the New and the New Fullfills the Old, and the truly inspired writings mesh because God is as all knowing as we believe. I trust that it would have been almost impossible for the Gospel writers to ‘make up’ a story as grand as the 4 gospels to fullfill the Old Testament so well. We are talking about 2000 years ago, it was not as easy to ‘google’ in those days to create a work of fiction such as the ones you mention above. Peace be with you.

• 2. Justin  |  May 16, 2007 at 12:13 am

  I like your big quotation marks! haha

• 3. LaShawn  |  May 16, 2007 at 1:47 am

  Justin, I have colored ones when I quote the ladies

  That made me chuckle!

• 4. Mike C  |  May 16, 2007 at 1:48 am

  I do not know off hand of any atheist historian or NT scholar who accepts the Gospels as eyewitness accounts.

  Well then let me introduce you to one. N.T. Wright is a pre-eminent historian and New Testament scholar who doesn’t fit easily into either conservative or liberal academic camps when it comes to historical Jesus studies – and yet he has argued well against many of the speculative theories you mention above.
  You can find many of his articles online here.

• 5. HeIsSailing  |  May 16, 2007 at 7:19 am

  weliftthemup sez:
  “We are talking about 2000 years ago, it was not as easy to ‘google’ in those days to create a work of fiction such as the ones you mention above. ”

  That’s true, but the ancients were no dummies either. Many of the scenes in Mark, especially the miracle stories, have Greek passages that are verbatim from the Septuagint passages concerning Elijah and Elisha. If this were today’s world, that would be called plagiarism. But copyright laws did not exist in the ancient world, and this sort of lifting and borrowing was quite common in the ancient world.

  If the Gospel writers were based on eyewitness accounts, then ask yourself who was the eyewitness to the scene in the Garden of Gethsemene when Jesus was praying while his disciples (eyewitnesses) snoozed away?

  *************************
  MIke C, thanks for the link. I have heard of NT Wright, but am not familiar with his research. I look forward to checking him out.

• 6. Brendan  |  May 16, 2007 at 7:32 am

  An even more fundamental question than whether they were eyewitness accounts is whether there was anything to literally eyewitness. If the story began as metaphorical fiction to begin with, then it’s silly to take the jump to consider who was and was not an eyewitness.

• 7. Michael Turton  |  May 16, 2007 at 7:33 am

  I trust that it would have been almost impossible for the Gospel writers to ‘make up’ a story as grand as the 4 gospels to fullfill the Old Testament so well.

  On the contrary, the Gospel writers clearly made up stories from the OT. Matthew’s well known error based on Zech 9:9 is a good example. In Mark Jesus correctly rides one animal into Jerusalem. But Matthew misread the original OT:

  Zech 9:9 states:
  Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

  ….To think that the writer meant two animals. So Matthew wrote

  Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
  And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
  And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

  Similarly, the Gethsemane Scene is based partly on the scene where Elijah was fleeing Jezebel. But Mark omitted the angel when he crafted the account; Luke, knowing the source, put it back in.

  The authors also frequently tell their readers where they derived their tales.

  In addition to the OT, two other sources lie behind the Gospels. One are Greek and Roman religious traditions, the other, Hellenistic historical fictions. In the latter, empty tombs, deaths, resurrections, travel narratives, miraculous escapes, and so forth, are commonplaces. All of the events of the Gospels can be sourced in either the conventions of Greek fiction or the Old Testament. A good source for the Greek fictions is Hock’s edited volume on Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative, but I also recommended Stephens and Winkler’s collection of the Greek novels.

  Well then let me introduce you to one. N.T. Wright is a pre-eminent historian and New Testament scholar who doesn’t fit easily into either conservative or liberal academic camps when it comes to historical Jesus studies – and yet he has argued well against many of the speculative theories you mention above.

  You must be joking. NT Wright is a well known religious conservative who believes the gospels are eyewitness accounts and Jesus was actually resurrected. He fits easily into the conservative camp; he’s one its biggest champions! As for my claims being “speculative” I suggest you pick up any mainstream NT text, not a far-right conservative like NT Wright, whose works are methodologically impoverished. In the extreme.

• 8. Jeff  |  May 16, 2007 at 9:52 am

  NT Wright is a controversial figure in the field of apologetics and there’s a reason why. He’s a nutball. A Xian I was debating told me to listen to a 90-minute podcast by him which I did. He made gobs of assumptions based on no evidence or logic, he outright lied numerous times, and horribly misrepresented so many things I couldn’t count them all. But that was only when he made sense. Most of the time he rambled on and on with no point. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever listened to. NT Wright is as good as a source on the Bible as listening to a rock is.

• 9. weliftthemup  |  May 16, 2007 at 12:05 pm

  The assumptions of Faith are that the Gospels are written as inspired writtings about the life of Christ from about the time of his ministry. We as Christians choose to belive that the inspired writings are truly inspired. Athiest assume that God does not exist, so there could be no inspiration given to the writers from a higher source. I see stricking resemblence in the writings from both the OT and the NT and have the faith that it is indeed inspired and divine. I have no doubt at all that the reason Christianity has survived for nearly 2000 years is because of the divinity of God. There have been many excellent work of fictions in the history of man, none of which inspired followings as did the death and resurection of Christ. Why? Because they were fiction. It accures to me that athiest must assume that Christians are ignorant people to have fallen under the ‘spell’ of a book that took nearly 2000 years to write. I assure you that you are incorrect in this assumption. The study of sacred scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit leads to true understanding. The study of sacred scripture with the guidance of Satin leads to the beliefs of athiest. I am sure that line will raise a few eyebrows as it were, but remember that from the Christian point of view, which is the only point of view I care to have, there is only two truths, good and evil. Christ or satin. Peace be with you.

• 10. Pedro Timóteo  |  May 16, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  but remember that from the Christian point of view, which is the only point of view I care to have, there is only two truths, good and evil. Christ or satin.

  Satin sounds nice…

• 11. Kim  |  May 16, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  Weliftthemup sez:

  “There have been many excellent work of fictions in the history of man, none of which inspired followings as did the death and resurection of Christ. Why? Because they were fiction”

  Oh Really? What about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Zorastorism? Are not also the followers of these religions inspired by their respective holy books in huge numbers? The followers of these religions far outnumber Christianity currently as well as in the past. It is the height of Christian arrogance to think that because their holy book inspired millions of people that it must be true. Since it is possible for billions of people to be inspired by works of fiction, it equally possible that Christians also belive a work of fiction.

  Weliftthemup sez:

  “but remember that from the Christian point of view, which is the only point of view I care to have, there is only two truths, good and evil. Christ or satin.”

  Why are you even here then? It is obvious you have your head in the sand as you will even consider anything anyone says here.

• 12. Hearty Heretic  |  May 16, 2007 at 3:31 pm

  Thomas Jefferson said that it was relatively easy to abstract “what is really his [Jesus'] from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill.” Stephen Mitchell does an excellent job of detailing the process in the introduction to his “Gospel According to Jesus.”

• 13. Karen  |  May 16, 2007 at 4:01 pm

  Satin sounds nice…

  Hee, hee! The religion of Satin, where we all worship luxurious bedsheets and underclothes at the Secret Church of Victoria.

• 14. Justin  |  May 16, 2007 at 6:01 pm

  but remember that from the Christian point of view, which is the only point of view I care to have, there is only two truths, good and evil. Christ or satin.”

  As a Christian, this response is disappointing at the end of weliftthemup’s post.
  on a side note, the fact that the gospels aren’t eyewitnesses aren’t troubling. It is apparent that there is something more than the men who penned these books.
  The Bible was written in three different continents over a span of 1500 years and in three different languages, yet it remains consistent in its ambiguities, paradoxes and ironies. It may have been penned by over forty men, but it is evident to me that it was designed and directed by one author, by one mind. To create such a book, with no higher direction to maintain these common threads and produce the effect, would be the equivalent of creating the stereogram by accident. Yeah, not possible.
  Anyway, I have to go roll my windows up, it’s starting to rain! YIKES!

• 15. Heather  |  May 16, 2007 at 6:23 pm

  Justin,

  **As a Christian, this response is disappointing at the end of weliftthemup’s post.** Thank you for saying that. I’m glad that your viewpoint isn’t ‘black and white.’ (In some areas, I’m sure it is, as it is for everyone. But at least you’re not putting all of humanity in black or white categories).

• 16. societyvs  |  May 16, 2007 at 11:34 pm

  “Many of the scenes in Mark, especially the miracle stories, have Greek passages that are verbatim from the Septuagint passages concerning Elijah and Elisha” (HIS)

  I would ask something quite simple – how easy was it to get a copy of that Septuagint to copy from? And when was this done?

  “And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.” (Micheal)

  Can’t this as easily be attributed to scribal mistake – to borrow from Ehrman an idea. Possibly the (and ‘ ‘kai’) was added in by a scribe – then the tenses to make it look right? Its funny cause there is 2 horses there – and yet Jesus only goes on one (unless he had a leg on both of them). I also just re-read Zech 9:9 (it could be that both were asked for?) “and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” MIs-reading or not – that’s a tricky one.

  I guess I have little problem with believing the stories were written with some literary techniques but relating a story that happened.

• 17. HeIsSailing  |  May 17, 2007 at 6:02 am

  “I would ask something quite simple – how easy was it to get a copy of that Septuagint to copy from? And when was this done? ”

  Hi Society. I had an early commentator on my site who claimed the same thing and had a link to an artcle he wrote on this topic. It compared the stories of Jesus and Elijah healing a blind girl (I think it was that miracle if memory serves) – and he had photo copied the Greek passages of both stories into his article to show that there were portions that were in fact identical.

  I wanted to site that article here, but wouldn’t you know it, that article is now gone and the link is dead.

  Sheeesh, now I feel like the guy who saw Bigfoot, but the film in my camera was overexposed, and the rain washed the tracks away. “But I saw him! I really did!”

• 18. Brendan  |  May 17, 2007 at 7:59 am

  HIS:I wanted to site that article here, but wouldn’t you know it, that article is now gone and the link is dead.

  You can find several such examples here:

  http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

• 19. societyvs  |  May 17, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  I figure even if the disciples did that (or as some would say – later people did that) it only proves the people matched Jesus to various people of the Tanakh. Some words are similar – again this is greek comapred with greek – I am guessing they would have to be (being the same language and all). But this happens so often in any language that it proves coincidence more than fact (for the theory).

  Even if it was ‘paraphrasing’ from older texts (which I have some doubts about since I am not sure how readily avaialble the Septuagint was in Christian circles – there seems to be little proof for this idea). In english if I am re-itterating a story about a certian person like King Jr. for example – it is more than likely a few of my sentences will match up with another’s. That being said, maybe the writer’s (or later writers) are doing what we now call ‘quoting’ for comparison reasons.

  For me the most plausible thing is the disciples wrote and knew the stories from the synangogue – and likely remebered them (having no copies readily available in their home). Then when they wrote about Jesus (or maybe even Jesus himself made these comparisons) they wrote of the Tanakh characters and Jesus – and it’s no wonder some texts match up so excellently (both being greek versions of the passage). MInd you from the examples in that link – only some words match up – not whole stringing patterns.

  As for the stories matching up with Elisha and Elijah and other facets of the Tanakh – does it mean Jesus never did what he is claimed of doing? The stories are similar but they are slightly different also – even people of Jesus’ day (according to the gospels) compare him with Elijah and ‘the prophet’ (ie: Moses). One might not have to wonder why if these examples happened and were seen. Which seems to be half the point the disciples are making with the writings. I am not saying the similarities aren’t there – I think they are – but they also have Jesus as someone in the newer version as a point – that maybe a Jewish viewer might more readily understand than us. (possibly proving jewish writers and not greeks – except for Luke).

• 20. GW staff  |  May 17, 2007 at 11:51 pm

  There appears to be much evidence that the gospels were written by the suggested authors. Having looked through references for 35 years and doing my own collating of time scales, personages and historical proofs…..I really do not have the time or the patience or the inclination to begin doubting Gods word at this stage.

  At every turn of the page, some naysayer will postulate a theory, throw it into the ring and watch doubt and insecurity spread like wild fire.

  The Bible IS his word…and Im sure what he wanted told is in there. The more study I do, the more ratification of the scriptures I find.

  That said, have a pleasant evening..
  G

• 21. Mike C  |  May 22, 2007 at 12:02 pm

  You must be joking. NT Wright is a well known religious conservative who believes the gospels are eyewitness accounts and Jesus was actually resurrected. He fits easily into the conservative camp; he’s one its biggest champions! As for my claims being “speculative” I suggest you pick up any mainstream NT text, not a far-right conservative like NT Wright, whose works are methodologically impoverished. In the extreme.

  Interesting… you claim not to know of any NT scholars who believe in the historicity of the gospels, and yet when I mention one, you say that he is not credible precisely because he believes in the historicity of the gospels. Seems rather circular to me.

  Your only argument against him seems to be that he is “conservative” (3 times in one paragraph?!) and yet I don’t see how slapping a label on someone says anything about whether or not their scholarship is valid or their views are correct. I could just as easily label (and thereby dismiss?) your views as “liberal” – but I don’t see what that has to do with the actual arguments or issues at hand.

• 22. The Myth of God’s Unconditional Love « de-conversion  |  December 25, 2007 at 12:54 pm

  [...] as to whether this event actually ever took place, we cannot deny the impact this story, related a few decades later in the gospels, has had on the world. This “good news” did not bring the promised peace on earth but [...]

• 23. anarchy  |  March 24, 2008 at 5:29 pm

  “as to whether this event actually ever took place, we cannot deny the impact this story, related a few decades later in the gospels, has had on the world. This “good news” did not bring the promised peace on earth but”

  I think that if you say that the Bible, Christianity, or Jesus’ precepts that he preached is the cause for the holy wars and deaths of many people is similar to the ill someone does if they were to say technology is responsible for the deaths of armies and innocent people because of advancements like machine guns, high level explosives, and such – its just the wrong way of putting it. Specifically Christ said that no man should resist an evil person.

  It’s the interpretation it goes through when taken into military and politics – Christianity is a not a call to raise up violently and, sadly, whether youre an atheist or a believer, im sure we all do agree it has had an extreme cost on all of humanity.

• 24. Mirjam  |  May 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm

  Mike C,
  He said he didn’t know of any atheist historian or NT scholar. The adjective “atheist”, of course, refers to both historian & NT scholar. There’s nothing circular about it, because the author you mentioned is definitely not an atheist.

• 25. Loyd  |  August 19, 2009 at 10:54 am

  Turton hasn’t been doing his research. He presents his ideas as if they are the only ‘scholarly’ ones out there. Ironically, this is not good scholarship. Dig a little deeper, instead of just presenting your own opinion and then finding those scholars who agree with it. The dross isn’t in the New Testament, it’s in this article.

• 26. Joe  |  August 19, 2009 at 3:08 pm

  Similarly, Mark created the story of the arrest in Gethsemane from 2 Sam 15-17,20. (from article above)

  I read 2 Samuel 15:17-20 and really do not see the correlation, accept for mentioning the Mount of Olives. This appears to be quite a stretch actually. It could be possible I guess—but I’ll be honest I don’t buy it.

• 27. someone surfing through  |  October 11, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  I’ve checked out all your references and I can honestly say that I think you’re smoking crack. I guess this is a webpage to make you feel better about your right to smoke it … huh? What else do you do wrong in your spare time that you feel the need to justify yourself?

• 28. Mystery Porcupine  |  October 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  See that is the kind of comment (27) that should be immediately “unapproved” by a moderator. Do we need more comment moderators on this site? I will volunteer.

• 29. Roy  |  October 11, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  I agree, Porcupine.

• 30. Quester  |  October 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  Mystery P,

  There usually isn’t any comment moderation on this site. Not that I’ve noticed anyway. And I’m glad for it, for several reasons.

  1) You can’t learn anything if you shut people up just because they disagree. If you find people that have nothing to teach, like George or now Mel, just don’t read anything they type. It’s not hard. I have my personal list of people I don’t read or respond to. It just takes a bit of willpower to keep from feeding the trolls.

  2) When I first came on this site, I was still a Christian, and a practicing pastor. Arguments with the Christians who came on this site helped confirm for me that Chrisitianity has no logic, reason or evidence behind it. I needed to go through that step to admit to myself that I no longer believed.

  3) Sites like this survive or die by the presence of people commenting. Take some time to go through the archives and count the number of responses to articles where everyone agrees or stays on topic. There are a few. Now, compare those to the articles where some evangelist came by to blather ignorance. Maybe a statician will crunch the numbers and show me where I’m wrong, but for the past year I’ve been working under the impression that theistic morons have been keeping this site alive for the rest of us. They post easily-ignored stupidity, post-counts go up, links to the articles appear in Most Recent Posts and Today’s Most Read Posts, and older articles are suddenly linked on the front page where casual readers can get a chance to be exposed to them.

  I don’t think we need more comment moderators on this site. I won’t leave if they appear- this is not a ditch I’m prepared to die in, but I think this site benefits more than it loses from the insistent presence of stupid people.

• 31. Roy  |  October 11, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  I understand your position, Quester, but this “someone surfing through” just states his disagreement without explaining why and then launches into ad hominem attack mode. That adds *nothing* to the discussion.

• 32. Mystery Porcupine  |  October 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  Okay, I think I have misunderstood the purpose of the blog. I was looking for a place to hash things out with deconverts. There seem to be plenty of things to hash out and discover without all of these long drawn-out Biblical discussion, not to mention flames. One doesn’t know which people to ignore unless one actually reads a post and allows more junk into one’s brain.

  It’s all about what people are looking for, I guess. I’ll move along and leave you guys to it.

• 33. Roy  |  October 11, 2009 at 5:24 pm

  Porcupine, are you saying you are leaving the site completely or just not engaging in the long drawn out Biblical discussions? I, for one, would like for you to hang around.

• 34. Mystery Porcupine  |  October 11, 2009 at 5:55 pm

  Roy, thanks. The only forums and blogs I participate in are moderated. This ensures that I don’t use valuable time wading through flames and irrelevant posts. I was so excited to find this site. I mistakenly assumed that the posts that were full of preaching were the exception, not the rule. I assumed that these type of comments would normally be moderated out of discussion. But this community has been around for a while, and that’s not how they do things.

  I arrived here because I searched for the words “former Christians.” That tells you everything. I didn’t come here to read what Christians have to say about anything and everything they think is important. I came here to connect with deconverts. Instead it seems that I am mostly reading Christian comments and then watching decons argue with them. It’s a constant feud, and I was looking for something else. It’s not my kind of playground, and that’s okay.

  I could try to “read around” all of the Bible stuff to get to the deconvert comments, but when I do, all of the decons are responding to the Christians, so the discussion doesn’t make much sense? Ahh, whatever. I will probably follow the main blog posts and type a comment when it is applicable without reading through the comment wars.

• 35. Roy  |  October 11, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  Whatever will be will be, Porcupine. I’m getting tired of the preaching too. Especially George’s. I admit culpability for letting him bait me into responding. I intend to cease taking the bait. As I hope I’ve made clear, I do not believe in the supernatural so I am not a theist. That said, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are of great value in living a better life in the here and now, but I understand that the teachings of other religions may be as well. I will say this with regard to George’s preaching. *If* (and it’s a *big* if) George is correct, I can and do accept that, so I’m *safe*, even if in my heart of hearts I think he’s wrong. Ultimately it doesn’t matter, because I have long since moved past such concerns. I hope that makes sense to fellow de-converts and to George alike.

• 36. Quester  |  October 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm

  Mystery Porcupine,

  Have you tried the community linked to in the Today’s Featured Link up in the top right hand corner of the site? I don’t go there often, but it seems to be more of what you’re looking for.

  I’m quite happy when former Christians discuss common concerns with each other in these forums, but when everyone agrees with each other, what is there to say?

  *grin* Perhaps if I spent more time on the community site, I’d find out!

• 37. Roy  |  October 11, 2009 at 6:56 pm

  You know what folks. I personally feel plenty of hostility from Christians *and* atheists on this site. Read the following carefully:

  I am an *individual*. I do not feel the least bit of loyalty to anybody regardless of their belief or lack thereof. Some want few comments with more content. Some want few comments with little little content.

  How’s this:

  No comments with no content. As far as I can tell, with a few exceptions, *all* of you are insane. I’m starting to realize that all of this debate, discussion, or whatever you wish to call it is a colossal wast of time. I will watch from the sideline for a while. If anybody has a question for me, I will answer. If anybody has a comment about me, I will ignore it.

  Is that enough content for this comment?

• 38. Quester  |  October 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm

  Roy,

  I apologize if I’ve come across as hostile. If I actually thought you had nothing to offer, I’d have not bothered with any attempts at helpful criticism. I also apologize for being unclear. I’m glad to hear you’re stepping away from the argument(s) you’ve been having with George.

• 39. Roy  |  October 11, 2009 at 7:26 pm

  Addendum to my previous comment:

  If there is a comment directed toward me that I think needs a response from me, then I will respond.

  Quester,

  You have not come across as hostile so no apology is necessary about that. You are actually one of the aforementioned exceptions.

• 40. LeoPardus  |  October 11, 2009 at 7:31 pm

  FWIW, I think that for the most part the current level of non-moderation is pretty good. When we get someone who is particularly trollish, there should be some sort of consensus perhaps about getting him banned or at least having his posts put in a moderator queue.

  People come here in all stages of belief of unbelief and I think a very wide range of views is helpful. I really think that if we cut off the theistic morons, we’d alienate some folks in the “borderlands”.

• 41. Joshua  |  October 11, 2009 at 7:54 pm

  I’m quite happy when former Christians discuss common concerns with each other in these forums, but when everyone agrees with each other, what is there to say?

  I, for one, have found that ‘debating’ with Christians on this site has been really helpful. One of the most popular articles on the entire blog was written explaining how the Christian commenters on this site help solidify everyone’s experience of leaving the faith.

  On the one hand, we could moderate all of them out. On the other, I think a lot of ex-Christians have so many Christian friends and family that they need an opportunity to practice expressing the reasons they left to die-hards, especially when so many Christians are intent on ‘drilling’ de-converts with the ‘truth’. The practice of debating – as long as it does not turn into flame wars – is good.

  For myself, discussing / debating with Christians on this site helped me go through a necessary stage where I had to realize that being a Christians is not about being rational – in the least! Somehow, initially when I left Christianity I had this mistaken notion that I could reasonably talk to other Christians and they would see things from my perspective. Talking with dozens of them on this site – in depth! – has helped me not only to solidify the understanding in my mind that none of them has anything remotely resembling a Holy Spirit but also to practice my rhetoric – a very important skill to have when your entire family and hundreds of friends are all die-hard fundamentalist Christians, most from the Bible belt.

  I guess I’m saying all of this to just point out that I actually sorta like the debates… to an extent. George is overboard, for sure. He doesn’t listen to what is actually being said by anyone but himself. He just reacts to what people say and retorts with “but the Bible says…” Sadly, that attitude is found in most of my family, so learning to be patient with people like George is, well, a part of de-conversion. At least I think so.

  Does that make sense?

• 42. Mystery Porcupine  |  October 11, 2009 at 7:55 pm

  Hey Roy, I’ve enjoyed our exchanges and those I’ve had with several folks here. I didn’t meant to be discouraging. I just need space from all of the Bible quoting and condemnation – none of that really came from you.

  Quester, you asked, “when everyone agrees with each other, what is there to say?” That is a really funny question to me. I have a lot of meaningful dialogue daily with people who share common views. I am sure there are plenty of things that you could share that I don’t know yet, plenty of things that would be interesting to discuss, plenty of questions to ask. I can’t imagine that most de-converts have the same exact opinions about a lot of things. Philosophy, politics, relationships and ethics are all potentially affected by deconversion yet differ greatly from one person to the next. How does lack of faith in a personal God work out in life? There are so many things to consider. Those are the kinds of things that I enjoy discussing, not debates about whether prophesy will save my soul or not.

• 43. Joshua  |  October 11, 2009 at 7:57 pm

  See that is the kind of comment (27) that should be immediately “unapproved” by a moderator. Do we need more comment moderators on this site? I will volunteer.

  I like comments like that, personally. Every time I see one the immediate thought goes through my head “this person cannot have the Holy Spirit” and it makes me feel more confident in my de-conversion.

  If you want a community place to discuss things where that will not happen, see http://www.de-conversion.org. That is forum where basically only de-converts post.

• 44. George  |  October 11, 2009 at 8:22 pm

  Roy,

  I apologize if I’ve come across as hostile. If I actually thought you had nothing to offer, I’d have not bothered with any attempts at helpful criticism. I also apologize for being unclear. I’m glad to hear you’re stepping away from the argument(s) you’ve been having with George.

  Well, if you just was to discuss your de conversion status, all the reasons why you have figured out there is no god, go ahead. What does that do for you.

  I have never, to date, seen any reason in any post, including LEO, that would make me want to take a look at changing my mind regarding the person of Jesus Christ.

  Quester, I do not know what church you were the pastor of, do you mind sharing? And how did your flock handle your departure? Did you share your thoughts with them?

  Last question, did any of them follow your lead?

  Quester

• 45. George  |  October 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm

  Oh, and Roy, you seem to be changing and not for the better. You seem to be constantly sucking up to these full tilt atheists.

  Why?????

  You are not an atheist. Not even sure you are agnostic.

  Most in this de conversion have cast out of hand any chance of a god, of any sort. Not alone the God of the Bible.

  You are far more advanced then the atheists here.

  They just want you to become what they are. Don’t do it.

• 46. George  |  October 11, 2009 at 8:41 pm

  In the Second World War, up to 78,000,000 lost their lives. This war happened a mere 70 years ago.

  According to the Bible, this is a small total compared to what is headed to this planet.

  The Four Horseman will ride, just as the Bible states. The stage is set. Why do you insist on being blind.

  Even if the world disarmed itself of all nuclear weapons, a real doubtfull outcome, conventional war will destroy 3/4 of earths population. Just as millions died in WW2 from disease and famine, the same will again happen. Also, biological warfare will be available. North Korea with 13 different varities on hand at this moment. God only knows what the world has stockpiled.

  You do not sense the world, the nations of the world moving towards war? Are you serious?

  Why did Obama receive the peace prize? The Middle East, becoming a socialistic nation, disarm our nation. The entire leftest agenda from Europe. They have Obama pegged. He will fall for it, he is their man.

  All part of sacrificing the nation of Israel. This is the solution seen in the Whitehouse by the entire Obama cabinet.

  Israel now realizes where they stand.

  The Bible clearly states, “Who blesses Israel I will bless, who curses Israel, I will curse.” You believe those words to mean nothing. Words from a book written by 40 authors over a period of several thousand years, 66 books. Meaningless?

  You will be changing your mind, many of you.

• 47. George  |  October 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm

  Quester, you I do not believe.

• 48. Blue  |  October 11, 2009 at 9:00 pm

  Is George the best Poe ever? No one’s this good at filling all those stereotypes at once.

• 49. Mel  |  October 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm

  I agree with George. How could the Bible be based on the Jews and Israel and not be relevant.

  I have heard there are mathematic equations that make the prophecies impossible not to be true? Has anyone ever heard of that before?

  A book by Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

  Maybe it was the prophecies about Jesus Christ being the Jewish Messiah.

  Anyway, it seems to make sense in light of what is going on with Islam and the Middle East.

  Could it really be that there is not an predesigned plan at work? Also, man will not survive this planet.

  About a year ago, we had an a astronaut for a client. Blaine Hammond, I had never heard of him. He had made two trips on the shuttle. I had a rare opportunity to spend quality time, what a blast. I also did not know that you can go to the Nasa site and watch video of all the missions inside the shuttle. Very interesting to see.

  I asked Blaine why we were doing these missions, the main reason. I know the scientific research, etc.

  The reason he gave, with no hesitation was short, to the point, and serious. Blaine said, “we are going to have to leave this planet someday.” At first I thought he was kidding, then I realized he was not. Nuclear war is in our future. When, not if. I hope he, and the mentality of a nation who believes it can wage a nuclear war and win, is dead wrong.

  But, this has been the difference between America and Russia for years. I do not believe their world goals have changed.

  Russia has tried to destroy Israel by proxy since 1973 and earlier. According to the United Nations reports on nuclear weapons, Israel is highly armed, even though they say they have no nuclear capability, The UN states Israel has a large amount of its weapons trained on Russia, and Russia knows it.

  Why are these things shaping up just as the Bible says???

  There is far more to it, including the reason for Islam and the 22 Arab states. I hope some of you come to understand. Do not be taken in by the thought that you will die like an ant. Nothing after this life. Do not fall for it.

• 50. Quester  |  October 12, 2009 at 1:42 am

  Roy,

  You have not come across as hostile so no apology is necessary about that. You are actually one of the aforementioned exceptions.

  Ah, all right. Thanks. When you’d said,

  Some want few comments with more content.

  I assumed that was a direct reference to me, and therefore a comment on my hostility to you. As I have badly misjudged how I am coming across in a solely text based medium before, I figured it was better to be safe than sorry.

  Er, better to be sorry than to cause more harm? Something like that.

  Mystery Porcupine,

  Those are the kinds of things that I enjoy discussing, not debates about whether prophesy will save my soul or not.

  Fair enough. Please do so. Feel free to ask The de-convert for permission to be a writer and write articles on those subjects. When others articles, respond to points that interest you. Ignore George, Mel, and those like them who come, bore us for a month or two, and drive up traffic to this site making sure it stays active for those who need it. They’re their own worst enemies, shooting down their own arguments and supporting our site every time they type a comment. Asking them to change their actions won’t work. Asking the site owner to change his actions might work. Changing your own actions is the most likely thing to actually work. If there are certain types of conversations you want to have, start those types of conversations and see what happens.

• 51. George  |  October 12, 2009 at 10:25 am

  Good for you, Quest. Keep your doctine in tact with your club of doubters.

• 52. SnugglyBuffalo  |  October 12, 2009 at 11:42 am

  I have to agree that talking with the fundies that come to this site can help with the deconversion process. Nothing solidifies apostasy like seeing someone make the same arguments you used to make and realizing what utter garbage those arguments are.

  I also have to agree that George is getting out of hand, though. He’s reached the point where he’s just repeating the same trash over and over, and it doesn’t seem like he’s going to stop any time soon.

• 53. J.Jason  |  November 23, 2009 at 11:54 am

  well i beive that you are right in your piont but wrong in the FACTS..
  May GOD bless you

• 54. Andrew  |  November 8, 2011 at 8:07 pm

  Well, John was a disciple of Jesus, and he wrote the gospel of John. Luke interviewed many eye-witnesses of Jesus for his gospel. Mark wrote down the disciple Peter’s testomony. Matthew was also a disciple of Jesus. So you are wrong, the gospels are eye-witness accounts. And John did also write 1 and 2 John!

• 55. Ubi Dubium  |  November 9, 2011 at 3:59 pm

  Andrew, you should get a little education. There is no evidence that any of those books were written by those people. They appear to have been written many years later, and those names were put on them to make them look more authentic. And apparently it worked, because you bought it.

  If we had original manuscripts that we could date, then you might have a case. But we don’t. We don’t even have the first copies of the manuscripts. We have copies of copies of copies of copies, etc etc, and none of our manuscripts even match each other.

  Andrew, if believing your books are somehow holy and special makes you happy, then great for you. But for us to accept them as more than ancient books of tall tales, we need something better than your assertions.

• 56. PopQuiz  |  December 23, 2011 at 2:41 pm

  Sites like this clearly bring home the points made in scripture of false teachers, scoffers, those falling from the faith, and those that are just downright liars that would come on the scene in the days of the end , when our Lord will return> I’ve never seen Christianity come to life as much in the past as it is now.
  . It’s a shame that so many are “de-converting”, as those will be the ones that will be in the most shamed state as they are thrown into Hell.

  The bible is the source of eye witness accounts and it’s awful to see so many people falling for the lie of anti-theism. You never were a Christian if you claim you are de-converting….you are just exposing yourself as the follower of the Liar, Satan himself.

• 57. Paige  |  December 25, 2011 at 10:56 am

  @ 56 PopQuiz

  It’s comments like yours that make us just shrug our shoulders, again. Do you think that those of us who have left the faith haven’t heard this time and time again? Most of us understand clearly just why you say it. Many of us believed once as you do now. We get it.

  Naturally, I’m assuming, you understand that most of us no longer believe the Bible to be infallible. We just don’t. I know this is bothersome to you because you believe we’ll burn in hell. I can’t fault you for your belief. I once believed as you do now.

  It’s a scary thought to think that one can be a Christian but later, through study, come to a different conclusion. It’s easier to just say that we were never Christians in the first place. Not only is it easier I think it is comforting to Christians to use that excuse for those of us who have deconverted.

  As a former Christian, I can tell you that I don’t believe in Satan. I realize this means nothing to you as you have judged differently. and that’s okay. I get it. I use to believe in Satan too.

  It’s a common misunderstanding to believe that those of us who have left the faith are anti-theistic. You’ll find some militant anti-theistic people out there, just as you’ll come across militant anti-atheistic people. In fact, it’s likely that far more theists hate atheists than the other way around. After all, we are Satan’s liars according to you, right?

  Merry Christmas

• 58. robert  |  December 27, 2011 at 6:09 pm

  i was recently watching joseph campbell. he said the word demonic actually comes from the word dynamic. the dynamic of life. so the creator is actually against life. so they turned it into a devil. instead of looking at life as something awesome they turned it into something to be despised. jesus even said to hate your life.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (Address never made public)

Name

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed