Not Your Typical Ex-Timony
sent in by Gary
This isn’t an extimony in the usual sense that you normally see here on this website. I have been a lurker here for a few months now. I have read many of the extimonies written by former Christians. With out a doubt I believe these folks are very sincere in there contributions here. As you can read from their posts you can see how sincerely they sought out the God of the Bible and failed to find this very elusive being.
Of course we have a very diverse community of people who come to this website. I suppose most folks have become agnostics or atheists since their deconversion from Christianity. But we do have a sprinkling of pagan, wiccan, or similar types of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that either. Personally I don’t put any more credence to their claims that I would the Christian claims.
But if a Non-Christian belief system works for you I will not argue with your results. Non-Christians seem to be much less annoying in that I haven’t been pestered by any to convert to their particular belief system. Plus they seem to be much happier in general.
I am not particularly religious myself. I have held a number of spiritual views over the years. My parents were not very steady church goers. Occasionally we went to a Baptist church about a mile or so up the road. It didn’t make much of a believer out of me at the time. I had more fun reading science books and learning as much as I could about things at the time.
When I got of high school I flirted for awhile with some New Age ideas such as astrology, oujia boards, automatic writing and so forth. I was rather disappointed by the results. Then I came across an ad in Fate Magazine for a Rosicrucian Society. I joined that for awhile. This proved to be a little more interesting. I guess I stayed a member for a couple of years or so.
Then I got caught up into a popular Bible Cult of the 1970’s. No it wasn’t the Moonies. It was something called The Way. Fortunately, I got invited to leave their cult because I kept asking too many questions.
After that I studied ceremonial magick and dabbled in the teachings of The Golden Dawn. The results were rather mixed but the material is fascinating to study.
Lately I have discovered the works of Ayn Rand and her wonderful philosophy called Objectivism. Never have I discovered a more practical philosophy. I wish I had encountered it years ago.
Occasionally some Christian troll comes here and spews forth their propaganda. What I have enjoyed the most though is all of the wonderful comments their drive by posts generate. It is great to see many folks who have woke up to the hoaxes of religion.
One of the problems with religious teachings are they are very seductive. What do I mean by this comment? Religious teachings hold out the promise of wisdom. Who wouldn’t want that? If you are experiencing major problems in your life religious teachings become even more enticing.
You go in expecting to gain something extremely important and mysterious. People just love to solve a mystery. Most folks who decide to follow a spiritual path do so because they are seeking honesty, enlightenment, truths, or a desire to give their live some kind of meaning. They are seeking an ideal way to live an deal with others.
Unfortunately they will find none of these things. More often it will be years later before they will realize that the wisdom that they sought was in reality nothing but a hoax. The true enlightenment comes when you realize that religious teachings are totally false. It makes me wonder how many ministers and pastors are “closet atheists?”
In a future post I will offer some possible origins for why people seek out spiritual paths.
Columbia
Missouri
USA
How old were you when you became a christian? 20
How old were you when you ceased being a christian? 22
What labels, if any, would you apply to yourself now? FreeThinker Skeptic
Why did you become a christian? Because of the false guilt and the threat of hell.
Why did you de-convert? Many reasons! Further research into the origins of the Bible and Christianity itself raised doubts. Plus really reading the Bible was an eye opener!
email: harcortm at yahoo dot com
This isn’t an extimony in the usual sense that you normally see here on this website. I have been a lurker here for a few months now. I have read many of the extimonies written by former Christians. With out a doubt I believe these folks are very sincere in there contributions here. As you can read from their posts you can see how sincerely they sought out the God of the Bible and failed to find this very elusive being.
Of course we have a very diverse community of people who come to this website. I suppose most folks have become agnostics or atheists since their deconversion from Christianity. But we do have a sprinkling of pagan, wiccan, or similar types of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that either. Personally I don’t put any more credence to their claims that I would the Christian claims.
But if a Non-Christian belief system works for you I will not argue with your results. Non-Christians seem to be much less annoying in that I haven’t been pestered by any to convert to their particular belief system. Plus they seem to be much happier in general.
I am not particularly religious myself. I have held a number of spiritual views over the years. My parents were not very steady church goers. Occasionally we went to a Baptist church about a mile or so up the road. It didn’t make much of a believer out of me at the time. I had more fun reading science books and learning as much as I could about things at the time.
When I got of high school I flirted for awhile with some New Age ideas such as astrology, oujia boards, automatic writing and so forth. I was rather disappointed by the results. Then I came across an ad in Fate Magazine for a Rosicrucian Society. I joined that for awhile. This proved to be a little more interesting. I guess I stayed a member for a couple of years or so.
Then I got caught up into a popular Bible Cult of the 1970’s. No it wasn’t the Moonies. It was something called The Way. Fortunately, I got invited to leave their cult because I kept asking too many questions.
After that I studied ceremonial magick and dabbled in the teachings of The Golden Dawn. The results were rather mixed but the material is fascinating to study.
Lately I have discovered the works of Ayn Rand and her wonderful philosophy called Objectivism. Never have I discovered a more practical philosophy. I wish I had encountered it years ago.
Occasionally some Christian troll comes here and spews forth their propaganda. What I have enjoyed the most though is all of the wonderful comments their drive by posts generate. It is great to see many folks who have woke up to the hoaxes of religion.
One of the problems with religious teachings are they are very seductive. What do I mean by this comment? Religious teachings hold out the promise of wisdom. Who wouldn’t want that? If you are experiencing major problems in your life religious teachings become even more enticing.
You go in expecting to gain something extremely important and mysterious. People just love to solve a mystery. Most folks who decide to follow a spiritual path do so because they are seeking honesty, enlightenment, truths, or a desire to give their live some kind of meaning. They are seeking an ideal way to live an deal with others.
Unfortunately they will find none of these things. More often it will be years later before they will realize that the wisdom that they sought was in reality nothing but a hoax. The true enlightenment comes when you realize that religious teachings are totally false. It makes me wonder how many ministers and pastors are “closet atheists?”
In a future post I will offer some possible origins for why people seek out spiritual paths.
Columbia
Missouri
USA
How old were you when you became a christian? 20
How old were you when you ceased being a christian? 22
What labels, if any, would you apply to yourself now? FreeThinker Skeptic
Why did you become a christian? Because of the false guilt and the threat of hell.
Why did you de-convert? Many reasons! Further research into the origins of the Bible and Christianity itself raised doubts. Plus really reading the Bible was an eye opener!
email: harcortm at yahoo dot com
Comments
Glad you got out of The Way. These creeps tried to convert me when I was in college. They didn't really have a chance since they were so poorly thought of on campus. (We smart-alecky kids voted their student leader "Most Likely to Become a Sniper.") Anyway, I've since found out that this is a dangerous cult that is currently stockpiling an arsenal at its headquarters in Emporium, Kansas, in preparation for Armageddon. Ugh!
Thank you for your story, and congratulations.
I was a christian ( mormon) and well i got out of it at age 16 didnt like them telling me NOT to ask questions.
I have been a pagan ever since , but not like the stuff you see on TV and the hollywood movies. I am a solitairy ecclectic witch and i dont follow any type of groups cause i find them no diffent then some christian churches.
I do have a sign outside my window saying : IF YOU ARE A CHURCH GROUP TRYING TO SELL ME YOUR RELIGION, READ THE SIGN NEXT TO THIS ONE IT SAYS NO TRASPASSING.
I guess you haven't been close to many Muslims...
After all, after finding out that their preacher is a fraud and thus religion and Heaven and Hell is a fraud, the members would figure WTF? there's no Hell for punishment, might as well kill that SOB for lying and stealing their money, their trust, their minds, their lives.
They all need to be run out of the USA, let them preach their bullshit in Iran, if they can convert a Muslim country to Christianity, then Christianity must certainly be true!
A lot of us need to remember that Muslims will be just as terrifying as fundamentalist Christian evangelists if their numbers ever reach critical mass in America. Right now, Mexico is making that difficult, as most Mexican immigrants are Catholic, but people convert to Islam every day. Don't neglect one enemy by focusing too much on another.
I have felt a tugging seductive
luring back to christianity,..not the literalist,but the universalist
cult.I hav'nt found any new age/spiritualism as comforting as the bad news of the hell and heaven myth,but I continue to walk alone.(except for my friends here at (X).)
I look forward to your future post on why we need to seek out "spiritual" or higher powers!
service to the church, I have found little out here to replace or fulfill the need to share my talent or altruistic longings.
Forgive my moodiness tonight!
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/vincent_runyon/left_ministry.html#c12
Sorry it's so long, but well worth the read.
A site and story to check out:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/vincent_runyon/left_ministry.html#c12
Sorry it's so long, but well worth the read.
5/06/2006 7:21 AM
Very good site! Sounds alot like us!
Please anonymous, make up a name and join us in discussion.
Thanks, Ben
I am sorry you are feeling down. When I feel like that, I find the ex-christian.net forums really helpful. Perhaps you can start a thread telling people how you are feeling and everyone will share their experiences with you.
Remember, religion is an addiction. It pulls you back in the same way as alcohol and drugs.
Also, you inspired me to write a bit on spirituality on my blog.
Just a couple remarks to your posts:
First of all, I checked out objectivism once, but didn't stay there all that long. It's perhaps a very good philosophy for fresh exchristians. It's really quite objective and very refreshing. The only flaw in my opinion is that objectivists insist that we have free will. I don't think so.
I would also like to add that a spiritual path is not necessarily the same as a religious path. I can't give you a hard and fast definition, the two areas do overlap. Generally I would say religion is more about what the word actually means, namely reunion with a God, while spirituality is more about seeing that we have never been separate from God in the first place, so no religion or reunion is required or even possible. We are already "that", or "I am that" (I recommend the book by Nisargadatta Maharaj), rather, because there is only One.
Freedy, maybe nonduality is something to get you away from the lure of your old faith for good. Because it's not a belief system. Pure noduality is taught in uncompromising Zen-Buddhism or the Hinduistic school of Advaita Vedanta, for example. You are not asked to believe anything about a God, but rather to become the ultimate sceptic and to find out by the use of logic and your own experience that, as the formidable sage Ramesh Balsekar puts it, nothing can ever happen that is not the will of God. But he's talking about an impersonal cosmic force that cannot be known by humans. That's what "thy will be done" is really all about. As Schopenhauer said, you can surely do what you want, but you cannot determine what you want. That's up to God. Do whatever you like, it is automatically divine, the will of the cosmic Force. You as a human being with a personality are an illusion, and Nonduality invites you to find out -- not to take anyone's word for it -- that You are forever -- that I am forever. I'm currently in the process of finding out, so to speak, but mind you it's always "so to speak" in this field. It's absolutely mind blowing to find out that you're not the fallible personality that is responsible for loads and loads of "mistakes" -- not say sins. This entity (christians say soul) you have always thought yourself to be is an illusion. I'm still utterly benumbed by this realization. I (the illusion) kind of can't believe it and still keep forgetting it in the heat of daily life. But it's truly humbling to have been so utterly wrong and ignorant.
You guys were talking about guilt and fear. Well, Ramesh Balsekar ends this Satsang pointing out that you can be sure that you will never EVER have to ask God's forgiveness for ANYTHING. Beware, it's not for the faint of heart or for the proud, because "you" are being taken apart peace by peace (so that You can shine forth):
http://advaita.org/Ramesh%201_12_01%20transcript.htm
Some people say Jesus was an enlightened master quite different from what ordinary christians believe in. From that perspective some of his statements make sense, e.g. like I myself said, it's not for the faint of heart or proud people, just as Jesus eschewed pride but also said that cowards wouldn't enter the kingdom of God.
I guess what you're talking about is along those lines too, Brigid. Be good , be bad, it'll be fine, but keep the illusion in check...
I haven't noticed anyone eschewing a belief system here, just deciding that Christianity is not to their liking. I would posit that that is a result of not understanding authentic Christianity. Try reading the Autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila, or her Interior Castle. St. John of the Cross is also excellent. My point is that you can only come to an understanding of a thing by researching those who have been truly successful at it.
The Schopenhauer quote you can find here:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurscho155429.html
I don't know where he originally said it, maybe it was in his "Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will".
Greetings -- Arthur
That is what we are all interested in, and all the rest is hubrus. Fortunately, the answer is the same for everyone. Shocking, isn't it?
You don't really give a crap about all the Consciousness and doers and be-ers (maybe beers:)). You want an end to the confusion, pure and simple. Christianity clears the murky waters, but only what I have termed "authentic Christianity."
The Bible is not Christianity. Sola Scriptura is an invention of the Renaissance era. To get a better picture of Christianity, look to great writers like St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. If you get nothing else out of it, you'll understand how to frame an argument rationally.
Aquinas probably seems childish to you because you don't accept his premise that because reason has limits, and so is faulty, we need an infusion of knowledge from that which resides in the bounds beyond reason. That premise seems obvious: if reason has limits, then I want a viewpoint that is broader. Only an intelligent being in that realm can do that. Your rejection of that premise holds water only if there is nothing intelligent beyond human sentient life. You have no way of being certain of your conclusion, as you cannot prove something does not exist.
My previous statement, that none of this wrangling about the truth or falsity of Christianity, while waxing over eastern religions or swamis, is the point. Everyone wants clarity, to clear the murky waters. Unless you purport to have a complete description of reality, I posit atheism doesn't fill the bill.
The truth or falseness of Christianity, since NONE of us have a complete picture of reality, is in looking to the most successful practicioners of it. If we were talking about Italians around here, you guys would be pointing at Sal Traficante as typical.
And I spent years as an atheist. Been there, done that. I understand the anger. It's not necessary.
Translation: I am me. Why aren't you just like me? You should be.
Anyway, I'll just comment your comments: Elroy, you don't have the ultimate medicine, and you don't know what I give a shit about and what not, and you have completely failed at summing it up. Believe me.
Brigid, I guess that to some extent it resembles Sartre's existentialism, which I don't know too much about, but he's really not my inspiration. BTW, he said we can't escape free will -- nonsense! "Negate the outside world" -- I don't know. I'd suggest negating any differenciation between inside/outside world. Maybe that's what Sartre meant. But if you want names: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spinoza espoused somewhat similar "philosophies", but if you really want to get into it try Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj or Ramesh Balsekar among others.
muttmutt: Well said.
There's "no turning back" as the old gospel song says.
Now, if the evidence conflicts with your assessment of theism. and you cannot find holes in Castanon's laboratory analyses, you'll have a much clearer choice in front of you.
Yes, to include you, shocking, isn't it, you seem to somehow forget yourself in your logic argument, that's both hubrus and illogical.
Elroy: "You don't really give a crap about all the Consciousness and doers and be-ers (maybe beers:)). You want an end to the confusion, pure and simple."
Confusion? Your god was founded on confusion. Read your bible, its full of mythology, unicorns, dragons, Satyrs, arrow snakes, flying chariots, god jumping around with fire blasting out of his skull, you've got to be kidding. You have read the bible, right?
Elroy: "Christianity clears the murky waters, but only what I have termed "authentic Christianity."
The early Greek philosophers, cleared the murky waters, and started branches of science to further clear up "natural phenomenon", that was used to declare "god" was acting out in our world.
However, the religiously fanatic, and mystical needed to control the masses, so, religion was pushed to keep everyone obeying their words. What used to be attributed to a "god", is now attributed to scientific explanation. Hence, the reason science, died out for the most part, as christianity gained power, remember the dark ages? Do you know how many scientists were murdered because they studied science, instead of saying "god" explains everything? Elroy, you need to go to school and read a few history books. Your religion has perfected the recipe for creating murky water. If there were no Murky water, your entire religion and god would be unnecessary. You need there to be no answer for "sin", you need there to be an answer for "death" and the "afterlife", you need there to be an explanation for why your friends don't like you anymore, or for why bad things happen to good people in the world. But, instead of using logic, you would prefer to say, "god only knows". Sort of like "if Allah wills it", sound familiar.
Elroy: "Aquinas probably seems childish to you because you don't accept his premise that because reason has limits, and so is faulty, we need an infusion of knowledge from that which resides in the bounds beyond reason. That premise seems obvious: if reason has limits, then I want a viewpoint that is broader."
Obviously, a few logic courses shy of your PhD, right... If I give Aquinas his due, and say he is 100% correct in his assertion, that all humanity has limited and faulty logic and reason then, Mr. Aquinas' own "personal" logical and reasoned statements, are limited and faulty based on his premise. So, which do you prefer, me to suggest that Aquinas is a bumbling fool (not bad for his day I suppose) who discredits himself with his own premise statement that "all" (to include his) reason (in which he uses), is faulty? Or, should I be more the christian, and call him a fool without logical support...
If you read some, at least a little, instead of cutting and pasting biased, wannabe reality scenarios, you will realize that many "theologians" in forming their ontological arguments, somehow... leave themselves "out" of their premise statements or arguments... as if... somehow... they were "above" and "resided" outside of "reality" and the general population they were assigning their philosophy to... Sound nice, sitting on the outside of reality, and making comments about how flawed everything is, they observe... kinda' makes them appear like "gods", huh... Perhaps, they were trying to predict what a "god" would say, if he/she/it were wanting to speak, and wrote down some material to speak from, in the pulpit, as "if" they were "god" himself/herself/itself...
Elroy: "Only an intelligent being in that realm can do that. Your rejection of that premise holds water only if there is nothing intelligent beyond human sentient life. You have no way of being certain of your conclusion, as you cannot prove something does not exist."
As you can't prove something exists... Therefore, we can conclude, that you are using your imagination to create an untestable hypothetical.
By the way, your stigmata BS is hilarious... "Stigmata are primarily associated with the Roman Catholic faith. Many reported stigmatics are members of Catholic religious orders. About 90% of reported stigmatics are female."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata
Uh, isn't it funny that only the "Catholics" seem to be really in tune with Jesus' suffering, and mainly women... I suppose that means everyone else is just plain jane believers, somewhere in the middle of the road, like you "Elroy"... If Aquinas is correct and "everyone" has faulty logic and reasing abilities, then, perhaps, stigmata is a faulty perception of something religious, perhaps they're just self-induced sores, I mean, anythings' possible if we can't ever really know "truth" from our obvious limited abilities... Yeah, the murky waters are clearing right on up...
Elroy: "Jesuit Priests Survive Atomic Bomb Speaking on American TV, the German Jesuit Father Hubert Shiffner gave the startling answer:"
Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst
"The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind." A History of God
Stephen Hawking Theoretical Physicist
At a physicist's conference Hawking was attending after his book A Brief History of Time was published, a reporter approached him to ask if he did in fact believe in God, given the "mind of God" reference near the end of the book. Hawking responded quickly (suggesting his answer was pre-prepared) "I do not believe in a personal God."
Friedrich Nietzsche German philosopher
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."
George Bernard Shaw [1856-1950] Irish-born English playwright
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
Isaac Asimov [1920-1992] Russian-born American author
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
Well, there you have it Elroy. Do you need some more observations by forward thinking people of history. I mean, if you really took the quotes of the previously inspired Atheists, etc., you would just find supporting information on this site for such views. I suppose those who were quoted had to listen to apologetics their life also, and were not amused to say the least... Well, at a minimum, they may not have had to see cut and paste tactics to make such weak arguments...
Elroy, copying and pasting articles from the Internet is not appreciated. If you continue copying and pasting articles, all your posts will be deleted.
You may discuss the things in any articles, use a few quotes, and/or reference a link to any articles, but please do not post the entire articles.
Thanks.
A scientific experiment!
Here's a picture of the good Doctor: click here.
Those who would like to buy a movie featuring this "convicted atheist," as the video description states, should click here.
There Elroy, I helped you out. The real message is out there now.
Phew...
Asimov was a friend of my family, specifically my father-in-law, and they never felt a need to joust over the issue of God. He was a wonderful man.
Its hard to verbally joust over an invisible entity, beyond description and linguistic expression. Two intellectuals would understand the futility of such a discussion. If only one was an intellectual, well... then it may just be amusing to see how long it takes the other person to realize the futility.