Testimonies of Christians including ministers who came to apostacy

I thought the following deconversion stories might bring some hope to those of you still suffering from the mental prison called faith.

Deconversion Testimonies

If you search around, you can even find my story in the archives somewhere.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Trollin' for big northern
Walleye!

[edit on 9-7-2005 by junglejake]

Jake, I have not previoulsy accused you of trolling even though that's pretty much all you do here.

Why is it legitimate 'spirituality' to post about Muslims who become Christians, but it's trolling to post about those who have escaped such prisons?

(plus you've earned a highly coveted spot on my ignore list. Stop PMing me as well please)

[edit on 7-9-2005 by spamandham]

Because you posted no information of your own except to say this "interesting" website "might bring some hope to those of you still suffering from the mental prison called faith."

I just don't really see how that is condusive to anything but inflamitory responses instead of debate or discussion. So, I percieve it as trolling, not adding to a discussion. There's a reason when you're posting it says at the top of the screen:

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events,
please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

You two don't seem inclined to ridicule a dumb question (at least I hope not, we'll see, LOL) so answer me this, if you will--

what exactly is trolling? How does it differ from 'spamming' in regard to boards, not email?

I hadn't really ever thought about, until today I read two accusations of trolling, both seemingly quite different. So I'm curious.

The very first heading on the page you linked to, spamandham, immediately reminded me of somethingI read yesterday on another forum.

Same idea. First a clone then a drone.

But God's not a honey bee. LOL

Trolling is a discussion board's equivalent of phishing. It's where you request information from others without contributing any of your own, and it usually is done in a manner so as to inflame some people as to feel they have to respond. Wikipedia actually has quite a bit of information on internet trolling

Spamming, on the other hand, would be posting the same information in several locations. This would be like posting the same thread in 3 different forums in the hopes of either gaining the most possible responses or to gain points.

Thank you Jake.

Polls, I assume, are not included in trolling, though they kind of fit the description.

Originally posted by spamandham
I thought the following deconversion stories might bring some hope to those of you still suffering from the mental prison called faith.

or delusion of something portrayed as 'faith' or 'the faith'?
As far as these going to apostasy--perhaps it is the other way around--they left the apostasy.

Originally posted by queenannie38
what exactly is trolling? How does it differ from 'spamming' in regard to boards, not email?

Trolling is posting with the behavior of a troll. It consists of inflamatory posts such as "You XXX are all a bunch of idots" who's objective is either a vent for the poster or to simply cause similar inflamatory responses at which point the troll will jump back in and say something to the effect of "hah hah hah, you guys are so stupid that you responded to me".

However, posting a minority position (that happens to be my actual position) in a way that juxtapositions a majority position is not trolling. It's a way of exposing the absurdities that lie beneath the surface.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham
I thought the following deconversion stories might bring some hope to those of you still suffering from the mental prison called faith.

or delusion of something portrayed as 'faith' or 'the faith'?
As far as these going to apostasy--perhaps it is the other way around--they left the apostasy.

From my perspective, faith (as defined by Paul) is an apostasy from reason, which is why I have little tolerance for it.

Originally posted by spamandham
From my perspective, faith (as defined by Paul) is an apostasy from reason, which is why I have little tolerance for it.

Do you mean 'your perspective of Paul's definition of faith' or 'your perspective of how christians define Paul's definition of faith?'

I'm not knocking your perspective--at least you value logic above superstition and blind faith--but could it be possible that it is also slightly narrowed? What I'm saying is that if you realize that most of the 'faith' stuff you have no tolerance for is grounded in something other than logical thought processes--why would you take their word for what Paul says? I know it can't be that you understand Paul thoroughly--because of the things you say about his writings and what they supposedly say. The things you say seem unfairly influenced by the mass ignorance of christendom concerning the 'true gospel'--just because a whole bunch of people say they know, and consider themselves authorities on that which they claim to know, doesn't necessarily mean they truly know.

These same all-knowing authorities are mainly responsible for the distorted understandings of the NT, partly because they obscured the meanings of words and further confused it with made-up creeds and doctrines.

When Paul says:

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
--Romans 3:22 KJV

He is not saying that God's righteousness is only gotten to by believing in Christ--because the word 'faith' was not precisely used with the same meaning as we now use it. It didn't mean 'believe' as in 'blindly convinced of something you have no proof of'-- it mean more like a 'trust fund' or a guarantee of something, something that was promised in good faith based upon something that was credible and trustworthy.

And, evidently, that thing which is guaranteed to all is just that--something promised to all--whether they believe it is trustworthy or not--'for there is no difference.' There are other things behind the idea of believing what has been promised--but Paul says, more than once, that everyone will benefit from the same guarantee--because the one who promised it will stand behind the pledge--whether any man does ro not, is immaterial. It's a done deal anyway.

But many have been led to believe that it is somehow to have this 'faith' and that makes them many things they are not, instantly upon 'believing' but it's not even about their ability to believe--or inability, either. And this is a significant twisting of the original meaning behind the words as they were written to convey.

Paul says 'faith' as being that which is the binding object of the contract or promise--such as someone's good name on the promise to pay back a loan. When he says 'believe' he means 'willing to enter into that agreement.' And in other verses, he uses words that show that somehow he offered these people good sound proof of what he said, and they believed what he said, not based on ignorance or naivete, but because of whatever proof he had to back it up. It most likely wasn't a physical thing--more like a convincing declaration--which isn't out of our bounds of reasonable acceptance. Every day we accept what others say, based on verbal proofs they might offer which support and verify things we already know for sure--as well as the fact of who they are, if we feel they are a credible and trustworthy reporter of what they are saying.


And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
--1 Corinthians 2:4-5 KJV

The word here, 'demonstration', actually means what it means now--but think about it. Paul is saying he showed them evidence of the Spirit and of power. Then he says that their investment of trust shouldn't stand in the so-called knowledge of men, but in the power of God, that he, himself, demonstrated to them in person.

So your intolerance of faith is not something I would argue with--I truly see your point--and it makes sense. But don't let the shallow understandings of the world count as truth for you--if you don't let your mind be swayed by nonsense, don't let it believe anything that is spouted by anyone who you feel is nonsensical. Doesn't mean that there isn't a stray bit of rational thinking coming out in the midst of the nonsense now and then--but if there is, you can find it elsewhere just the same--and know for yourself.

I hope I am clear in what I'm saying. I'm not trying to challenge your opinion/perception at all--or criticize you for it. I'm just saying, don't let it end before its performed its full purpose for you.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Do you mean 'your perspective of Paul's definition of faith' or 'your perspective of how christians define Paul's definition of faith?'

I really just mean the Biblical definition attributed to Paul, that it seems most Christians accept. It boils down to belief based on hope rather than knowledge.

For some reason, "wishful thinking" is almost universally seen as silly, but when you call it "belief in things hoped for", it garners respect. I see no distinction other than the words used to convey the same concept.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Paul says 'faith' as being that which is the binding object of the contract or promise--such as someone's good name on the promise to pay back a loan. When he says 'believe' he means 'willing to enter into that agreement.' And in other verses, he uses words that show that somehow he offered these people good sound proof of what he said, and they believed what he said, not based on ignorance or naivete, but because of whatever proof he had to back it up.

You can't knock someone for believing something they have proof of, but I have no such proof, and have no reason to even believe anyone else has ever had such proof.

Originally posted by spamandham
I really just mean the Biblical definition attributed to Paul, that it seems most Christians accept. It boils down to belief based on hope rather than knowledge.

Okay, I get it--thanks for the clarification.

For some reason, "wishful thinking" is almost universally seen as silly, but when you call it "belief in things hoped for", it garners respect. I see no distinction other than the words used to convey the same concept.

Right--funny how people use words for delusion rather than clarity--I can't help but think that it is abuse of our ability to communicate. No one is precise or even remotely careful with the words that come out of their mouths anymore, at least that's my own opinion--labels and misunderstandings cause more strife than anything else, the way I see it.

You can't knock someone for believing something they have proof of, but I have no such proof, and have no reason to even believe anyone else has ever had such proof.

That's exactly right. By 'right' I mean 'correct.'

Hey,

i knew just from looking at the heading of this thread that it was going to turn into a fight lol.

ok obviously the whole prison comment made by spam wasnt really the nicest thing to say. and spam you know where i stand in my belief system from the faith in faith thread i participated in that you made...good thread by the way

but with that said, even though i disagree strongly with Spam's ideology as far as religion goes i think he has every right to post this topic.
if christians like myself can post conversion stories (which i dont, but i know some do) then he should be able to post this right?

now maybe his prison comment pissed alot of you off and i can see why. nobody wants their beliefs thrown in the trash. but even though his comment was wrong imhop, from my perspective freewill is a God given right is it not? if he has feelings he should be able to post them as long as they dont go against certain guidelines of the website.

so maybe everyone needs to take a little breather i know beliefs are very personal and precious and when it feels like someone is bashing them its hard not to get defensive. but i think it is important to remember that his beliefs are just as important to him as ours are to us.

and aside from that comment that he started off with in this thread, i think hes been really respectful of all the ideas i have shared. and we come from two opposite sides.... conservative christian and STRONG non-christian lol. in fact his intolerance for stupidity is something we share and i respect.

Kind Regards,
DigitalGrl

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
ok obviously the whole prison comment made by spam wasnt really the nicest thing to say.

Nice or not, it is my belief. I don't see many of the Christians around here going out of their way to water down their positions regarding the beliefs of others nicely, why should I hide mine? How many of those whining about this thread have told me I'm going to hell, or that Muslims are not saved, etc.

As the minority position, you can all gang up and prove me wrong.

All that is required is for a solid argument to be presented that explains why faith is a valid way of obtaining knowledge. Until then, I am not only justified in holding my position, I'm justified in advertising it, even if it steps on a lot of toes.

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
but with that said, even though i disagree strongly with Spam's ideology as far as religion goes i think he has every right to post this topic.
if christians like myself can post conversion stories (which i dont, but i know some do) then he should be able to post this right?

Thanks DG! Those like you and queenie (and some others) make this forum worthwhile.

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
now maybe his prison comment pissed alot of you off and i can see why. nobody wants their beliefs thrown in the trash.

I suspect those most pissed off by it are the same ones who do the exact same thing to Muslims, Wiccan's and nonbelievers. - "Do unto others"

I have learned, in my lifetime, something essential about the idea of 'getting pissed off.' I've learned this not through faith, but through observing others and more profitably, from my own (sometimes quite painful/humbling) experiences and the resultant self-check/debriefings that must necessarily take place within one's self in order to make mistakes into lessons.

Getting 'pissed off' is not about one's values being thrown in the rubbish can. DG, I appreciate what you are saying and where you are coming from--I'm not trying to contradict what you are saying at all. In fact, you don't seem to get pissed off, so this isn't even really addressed to you, because obviously you've got this part down, whether in a conscious manner or not, it's not a problem for you from what I've observed at ATS. But you did give me an opening to say something that might not have occurred to other people who will read this thread.

Getting 'pissed off' has nothing to do with how someone else's thoughts or opinions regarding personal beliefs/convictions are affected. What spamandham or anyone else believes about what I feel to be true from my perspective cannot effect those mental entities of mine--if they are truly convictions in the purest sense of the word. IOW, 'secure in one's beliefs' = to 'conviction.'

We get pissed off at someone only when they say something that threatens our attachment to our hopes and beliefs (often actually delusions of our desires and fears) by exposing the inherent flaws that exist logically in such--the flaws that must be repressed in the conscious mind in order to maintain said attachment to those beliefs.

It is basically 'narrow mindedness' and fear that causes the reaction of getting pissed off. That is inherent in religion, and many religious people, especially the hard-driven fanatics who zealously support their system by often demonstrating inconsiderate and even insulting behavior when confronted with someone who dares to present an opposition.

Human nature, in it's most physical form of consciousness (that is 'emotionally driven') requires that all oppositions to personally established comfort-zones be demolished with fervor in order to protect the self-made walls which enclose one's mind in a comfortable reality.

Spamandham, I suddenly had insight about what you are asking in regard to how faith leads to knowledge....

It doesn't--especially the 'faith' as defined by the religious. In all ways, it essentially precludes learning and causes stagnation, which is why it is not about life but rather centered on a morbid concept. We must grow, or we must die and become compost. There is no room for static states of being in this dynamic universe.

But true 'faith' is something we all have, it is what keeps us getting up in the morning, and going on every day. It is the deep seated understanding that 'tomorrow is another day.' And in my own life, it is the understanding that because of what I both receive and give today both form and expand my potential existence tomorrow. I know it will be okay, because it will just be. And that is my personal ticket to unlimited knowledge--there for the taking every day that I wake up with the desire to learn and explore. My expedition into reality is not dictated or limited by what I perceive God is, but rather my expedition is unlimited even to the farthest reachest of what there is, because the God I know and who lives inside me and whom I live inside of, has no limits in either a physical sense or a mental/spiritual sense. There is no negative opposition that essentially becomes a challenge to my perception of reality, because that perception is undefined at all times.

If we could see ourselves outside of what we believe ourselves to appear as--then we could also perceive the hurts and miseries of others that such a limited perspective such as religious doctrine causes in those we encounter and subject to our own ideas of what is acceptable reality.

Teamwork, people, not competition. None of us can win if we fight against each other.


Okay, that was my soap box speech of the week. Thanks for attending.

Good post queenannie.

I feel that the fundamentalist taught verion of Christianity is so far from Jesus's teachings...and I am a Christian..I don't agree with some of the OT..doesn't make sense, either. -many flaws in the beliefs I feel. But funny thing in proverbs and other places in the bible it says that it rains on the evil and good both...There are alot of things in the bible that seem contradictory. Leviticus is a good example of the way the world really is. I think Jesus had alot of criticism for the churches (versions of Christianity).
Paul was preaching also for the era he lived in. Like women should wear head coverings (a minor example) while praying for power..what does that mean??????It only reflects the customs of the times.

I too fell away from believing for awhile. I was stuck in a very bad situation in my life for many years as a child and no amount of praying led me out of it or changed anything so I thought. But again, I'm not so sure it didn't help me. But it was a nightmare. I think you have to come to your own truths and what you are to eventually believe will actually happen...sounds weird, I know.