How many ex-Christians are there here on CF and reason for leaving Christianity?

[TheOldWays]

Oh you might be right, also nice to see you again!

Likewise!

 

[Silmarien]

I tend to agree, this feels so foreign now that I'm not apart of it and have years of distance between my Christian times and now. The deities I've connected with are so entirely unlike Yahweh I had no framework for dealing with that. The love of Hathor feels so unlike interacting with the god who is named Jealous (Exodus 34:14). I almost felt like a scared animal the first few times I reached out because of my conditioning, only in the last year have I actually learned to appreciate deity again.

I would be a bit careful with biblical concepts like jealousy, since the Old Testament in particular is a completely different cultural and linguistic context. "Jealousy" is a difficult word even in modern languages, given the way it's often conflated with "envy." They're two different things, though, and etymologically, the word "jealous" comes from the same place as "zealous"--the jealous dragon zealously guards her treasure from would be thieves. The Abrahamic God is certainly, uh, intense in a similar fashion, but I would be very cautious of the modern meaning and connotations of the word "jealous."

Anyway, I have a question of my own now. I remember you were leaning in a naturalistic direction a while back, but now you're talking about Hathor worship. Have you moved into a sort of polytheistic supernaturalism, or are you approaching this in a symbolic or psychological manner?

 

[Kaon]

That's good and all for those previous generations that had that direct experience. Is it wrong for me to seek the opportunity for that same experience?

No, it's understandable. And, I am sure He understands better than me how much or little you want that experience. Consider being a person of the "Old Testament": those humans did not have spirits of their own. When Adam sinned, his spirit departed from his body, and his flesh began to rot (it was already dead). All of his offspring are born under this same curse. So, the patriarchs of the OT were given the luxury to experience pieces of the Most High God - from prophets, to wonders to seeing the Image of the Most High God. They did not have a Holy Spirit to convict them of their wrong-doings; that is why the Most High God paid attention to these pathetic meat sacks with no spirit trying to do holy things - despite their curse.

Today, we have the Holy Spirit to convict us (we call it other things like morality, humanity and such). So, we don't need to be spoiled by wonders. This is a game of faith; we are a categorically incredulous lot of entities, often for no reason other than we were told to be.

If these additional senses does not provide an experience of a separate, intelligent consciousness (a "being"), then they cannot be used as evidence for that being.

What is evidence? By what metric is evidence measured, and how do you qualify what is universally acceptable evidence versus, say, a defect in how you perceive reality?

The subjectivity of "evidence" is why you would do better with faith - which should be read as trust. Why? Because evidence can be faked; chemistry can warp your reality to alter your perception. Is that altered perception real or fake? Why or why not? Whose reality is "more real".

I'd like that experience now, before I make a decision for this particular deity. Until then, without that experience, who's to say that other theistic paths aren't just as valid? They can claim the exact same thing.

That's why the name of this game is faith. Yes, someone could have powers like Nate Summers and they could be warping all of our realities. All of this could be a complete joke. Even in a Matrix, there are clues that build a complete image of the Truth. If we choose to believe there is a Prime, Most High God, and IF we choose to believe He is the epitome of love, we need to understand that He gives us light in the darkness - ways to perceive Him in a realm of confusion and death. It is understandable your want; it may not necessarily be justified, especially if you consider what you are asking (an audience with the Most High God from a race of entities that killed His Son, and continue to disobey Him).

And, that is part of the "game" also, that we must navigate through the muck of ignorance to get to the truth. We don't get the luxury to "know", because we forfeited that luxury of real knowledge when our prime mother and father abdicated dominion over this plane of existence to the serpentine enemy that swindled them out of their godhood. We let other entities calling themselves gods swindle us even more, pushing us to this current state of spiritual degeneracy.


Part of our sacrifices is striving to find the Most High God in this darkness, with the full knowledge that there are many gods that are masquerading as the Most High God - exploiting our need for carnal satisfaction and promising us fractions of what our Father is waiting to give us.

 

[ananda]

No, it's understandable. And, I am sure He understands better than me how much or little you want that experience. Consider being a person of the "Old Testament": those humans did not have spirits of their own. When Adam sinned, his spirit departed from his body, and his flesh began to rot (it was already dead). All of his offspring are born under this same curse. So, the patriarchs of the OT were given the luxury to experience pieces of the Most High God - from prophets, to wonders to seeing the Image of the Most High God. They did not have a Holy Spirit to convict them of their wrong-doings; that is why the Most High God paid attention to these pathetic meat sacks with no spirit trying to do holy things - despite their curse.

Today, we have the Holy Spirit to convict us (we call it other things like morality, humanity and such). So, we don't need to be spoiled by wonders. This is a game of faith; we are a categorically incredulous lot of entities, often for no reason other than we were told to be.

That's why the name of this game is faith. Yes, someone could have powers like Nate Summers and they could be warping all of our realities. All of this could be a complete joke. Even in a Matrix, there are clues that build a complete image of the Truth. If we choose to believe there is a Prime, Most High God, and IF we choose to believe He is the epitome of love, we need to understand that He gives us light in the darkness - ways to perceive Him in a realm of confusion and death. It is understandable your want; it may not necessarily be justified, especially if you consider what you are asking (an audience with the Most High God from a race of entities that killed His Son, and continue to disobey Him).

And, that is part of the "game" also, that we must navigate through the muck of ignorance to get to the truth. We don't get the luxury to "know", because we forfeited that luxury of real knowledge when our prime mother and father abdicated dominion over this plane of existence to the serpentine enemy that swindled them out of their godhood. We let other entities calling themselves gods swindle us even more, pushing us to this current state of spiritual degeneracy.

Part of our sacrifices is striving to find the Most High God in this darkness, with the full knowledge that there are many gods that are masquerading as the Most High God - exploiting our need for carnal satisfaction and promising us fractions of what our Father is waiting to give us.

By relying on what I do know for myself, I placed my trust in the Buddha-Dhamma, as it teaches things in accord with things I have known directly. Everything else, like what you shared about the "old testament" humans, Adam, the curse, patriarchs, prophets, holy spirit, is - for now - conjecture, speculation, or imagination for me.

If mankind forfeited the luxury to "know", then nobody after the "prime mother and father" should have that direct experience of deity, yet you said in a prior post that many did just that.

What is evidence? By what metric is evidence measured, and how do you qualify what is universally acceptable evidence versus, say, a defect in how you perceive reality?

The subjectivity of "evidence" is why you would do better with faith - which should be read as trust. Why? Because evidence can be faked; chemistry can warp your reality to alter your perception. Is that altered perception real or fake? Why or why not? Whose reality is "more real".

"Universally acceptable evidence" for me involves direct experience.

 

[Kaon]

By relying on what I do know for myself, I placed my trust in the Buddha-Dhamma, as it teaches things in accord with things I have known directly. Everything else, like what you shared about the "old testament" humans, Adam, the curse, patriarchs, prophets, holy spirit, is - for now - conjecture, speculation, or imagination for me.

That is your right as a sovereign human under the Most High God to follow what you know for yourself.

"Universally acceptable evidence" for me involves direct experience.

Ok.

 

[ananda]

That is your right as a sovereign human under the Most High God to follow what you know for yourself.

Ok.

I prefer to see it as my right as a sovereign under the Most High Buddha

 

[Zoness]

I would be a bit careful with biblical concepts like jealousy, since the Old Testament in particular is a completely different cultural and linguistic context. "Jealousy" is a difficult word even in modern languages, given the way it's often conflated with "envy." They're two different things, though, and etymologically, the word "jealous" comes from the same place as "zealous"--the jealous dragon zealously guards her treasure from would be thieves. The Abrahamic God is certainly, uh, intense in a similar fashion, but I would be very cautious of the modern meaning and connotations of the word "jealous."

Linguistics notwithstanding, does the first commandment not make the connotation clear here?

Anyway, I have a question of my own now. I remember you were leaning in a naturalistic direction a while back, but now you're talking about Hathor worship. Have you moved into a sort of polytheistic supernaturalism, or are you approaching this in a symbolic or psychological manner?

Oh, good question lol. Uhhh tbh I kind of vacillate between the spectrum of x-theism and atheism quite a bit. That's kind of a pattern on and off for the last years and it more or less torments me. I do not think there is anything wrong with viewing the gods as Jungian archetypes or such things but I have also worshiped a polytheist. Right now I'm somewhere in the middle.

The illustration I was providing for @PloverWing is more informed by my polytheistic past than literally today, but there are times where I feel motivated to do it; like recently. Not sure if its my own psyche at play wanting to make meaning where there is none or if its something else. I'll probably never know, I can only work with the information I have and I'm trying my best.

 

[Silmarien]

Linguistics notwithstanding, does the first commandment not make the connotation clear here?

We would need to have a much more extensive discussion about idolatry, I think, and what it actually means to put another god before God. We're really in Golden Calf territory here, worshipping things of our own creation instead of the Creator itself. In the modern period, this is usually ideological in nature--it's very pronounced on the religious right currently (though as a leftist, I struggle with it a bit as well).

I am obviously very Platonic, and would probably be comfortable viewing the First Commandment as the obligation to commit oneself to The Good above all else. If The Good is to be understood as a living, relational God, as it is in the Abrahamic faiths, then that obligation takes on additional connotations.

Oh, good question lol. Uhhh tbh I kind of vacillate between the spectrum of x-theism and atheism quite a bit. That's kind of a pattern on and off for the last years and it more or less torments me. I do not think there is anything wrong with viewing the gods as Jungian archetypes or such things but I have also worshiped a polytheist. Right now I'm somewhere in the middle.

The illustration I was providing for @PloverWing is more informed by my polytheistic past than literally today, but there are times where I feel motivated to do it; like recently. Not sure if its my own psyche at play wanting to make meaning where there is none or if its something else. I'll probably never know, I can only work with the information I have and I'm trying my best.

Okay, thanks! Actually, I can sympathize, since my relationship with Christianity continues to be volatile in a somewhat similar sense. It's endlessly frustrating.

 

[Zoness]

We would need to have a much more extensive discussion about idolatry, I think, and what it actually means to put another god before God. We're really in Golden Calf territory here, worshipping things of our own creation instead of the Creator itself. In the modern period, this is usually ideological in nature--it's very pronounced on the religious right currently (though as a leftist, I struggle with it a bit as well).

I am obviously very Platonic, and would probably be comfortable viewing the First Commandment as the obligation to commit oneself to The Good above all else. If The Good is to be understood as a living, relational God, as it is in the Abrahamic faiths, then that obligation takes on additional connotations.

Maybe this is the philosophical Pragmatist in me sneaking out but I generally just take the plain meaning here. When pastors preach in evangelical churches I always assume they mean literally other gods as well as concepts like money. Your idea fits well with Platonism, I agree, but Christianity I am unsure.

Okay, thanks! Actually, I can sympathize, since my relationship with Christianity continues to be volatile in a somewhat similar sense. It's endlessly frustrating.

Yeah, in the last year I've learned to not sweat it as much since a lot of it comes down to how I want to structure my thoughts on the supernatural and the community I want to be apart of. I am more or less an Existential Nihilist but its still the matter of finding the thing that gives me personal meaning, ya dig? It's really tempting to just fall to a source to just give me the answers but I couldn't believe them even if I wanted to, and believe me I've wanted to.

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe this is the philosophical Pragmatist in me sneaking out but I generally just take the plain meaning here. When pastors preach in evangelical churches I always assume they mean literally other gods as well as concepts like money. Your idea fits well with Platonism, I agree, but Christianity I am unsure.

I would hesitate to separate Christianity from Platonism, since the Hellenization starts right in the Gospel of John, goes straight through the Pauline Epistles, and then really blows up in the Patristic period. I'm having fun with Augustine's Confessions right now--there's a place where he says that he started reading the Platonists, and to quote what he found there, he just writes out the introduction to the Gospel of John. (It's funny because it's true.)

I wouldn't turn around and erase the Hebrew context, though I don't talk about it because I don't know it very well. I would be very impressed by any Evangelical church that was actually incorporating genuine scholarship on Judaism, though.

As far as worshipping other gods goes, though, it really depends. I didn't comment on that to avoid annoying people, and also because I find it a little difficult to pinpoint what is and isn't a different god. I'd probably be comfortable considering any concept of the divine that is morally compatible with the Gospel to be in some sense the same god. If you're off longing for the good old days of human sacrifice, on the other hand, that's a clearer case of idolatry.

Yeah, in the last year I've learned to not sweat it as much since a lot of it comes down to how I want to structure my thoughts on the supernatural and the community I want to be apart of. I am more or less an Existential Nihilist but its still the matter of finding the thing that gives me personal meaning, ya dig? It's really tempting to just fall to a source to just give me the answers but I couldn't believe them even if I wanted to, and believe me I've wanted to.

Have you ever read the existentialists? I would be surprised if I haven't recommended them before, because that is kind of what I do around here, but it's a really interesting and useful approach to existential nihilism from an atheistic perspective. Camus in particular.

Of course, the weird thing about existential nihilism is that even if it were true, we would never know it, so whatever direction you go, there's a leap of faith involved. So if you would prefer an alternative to existential nihilism, you wouldn't really be in worse shape epistemologically in the end. (This is how I finally managed to make peace with the notion of revelation.)

 

[Zoness]

I would hesitate to separate Christianity from Platonism, since the Hellenization starts right in the Gospel of John, goes straight through the Pauline Epistles, and then really blows up in the Patristic period. I'm having fun with Augustine's Confessions right now--there's a place where he says that he started reading the Platonists, and to quote what he found there, he just writes out the introduction to the Gospel of John. (It's funny because it's true.)

I wouldn't turn around and erase the Hebrew context, though I don't talk about it because I don't know it very well. I would be very impressed by any Evangelical church that was actually incorporating genuine scholarship on Judaism, though.

Yeah Hellenism and Christianity are a thing and definitely but most people I've met don't know the first thing about this, in my experience. I've only encountered Judaism as aesthetic and window dressing aka "Messianic Judaism" or sometimes its symbols are very abused in Evangelical churches.

As far as worshipping other gods goes, though, it really depends. I didn't comment on that to avoid annoying people, and also because I find it a little difficult to pinpoint what is and isn't a different god. I'd probably be comfortable considering any concept of the divine that is morally compatible with the Gospel to be in some sense the same god. If you're off longing for the good old days of human sacrifice, on the other hand, that's a clearer case of idolatry.

Yeah human sacrifice ain't my game.

Have you ever read the existentialists? I would be surprised if I haven't recommended them before, because that is kind of what I do around here, but it's a really interesting and useful approach to existential nihilism from an atheistic perspective. Camus in particular.

Of course, the weird thing about existential nihilism is that even if it were true, we would never know it, so whatever direction you go, there's a leap of faith involved. So if you would prefer an alternative to existential nihilism, you wouldn't really be in worse shape epistemologically in the end. (This is how I finally managed to make peace with the notion of revelation.)

I haven't read Camus firsthand but I am seriously considering because I've some summaries of absurdism and existential nihilism from him that perfect capture my feelings. Like even if there's no intrinsic meaning and I make my own and the absurdity of the process is why I do it! Embrace the madness, I say. That's more or less my view when I'm more religious so we might be more similar than I thought, which might be spooky for you.

 

[Silmarien]

Yeah Hellenism and Christianity are a thing and definitely but most people I've met don't know the first thing about this, in my experience. I've only encountered Judaism as aesthetic and window dressing aka "Messianic Judaism" or sometimes its symbols are very abused in Evangelical churches.

Aww, that's a shame. We've got a somewhat aggressively ecumenical Reform Jewish rabbi around here who herds up all the Protestants whenever possible to teach us about Judaism. (I laugh, but he's actually really interesting and I'm quick to jump at any opportunity to listen to him.)

I haven't read Camus firsthand but I am seriously considering because I've some summaries of absurdism and existential nihilism from him that perfect capture my feelings. Like even if there's no intrinsic meaning and I make my own and the absurdity of the process is why I do it! Embrace the madness, I say. That's more or less my view when I'm more religious so we might be more similar than I thought, which might be spooky for you.

Hmm, that strikes me as closer to Sartre than to Camus--of the two of them, Sartre is much more fixated on making your own meaning. Well, they're both very interesting, though I'm much more sympathetic to Camus these days.

And not at all spooky, haha.

 

[Rajni]

All "religious traditions" lead to hell.

Prove it.

 

[Rajni]

rayj

God makes a sinner into a Christian. The sinner does not change himself. Salvation is of the Lord.

This does not address my post.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Prove it.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[Rajni]

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

A book can say anything. That's not proof.

 

[Zoness]

Aww, that's a shame. We've got a somewhat aggressively ecumenical Reform Jewish rabbi around here who herds up all the Protestants whenever possible to teach us about Judaism. (I laugh, but he's actually really interesting and I'm quick to jump at any opportunity to listen to him.)

Sounds neat, I have a new coworker who is rapidly becoming a friend of mine who is Jewish and he's a pretty interesting dude; we've been talking religion (in private mostly because we have the same academic interest) and he's interested in my religion which is pretty cool. Suffice it to say I need to learn more about Judaism myself.

Hmm, that strikes me as closer to Sartre than to Camus--of the two of them, Sartre is much more fixated on making your own meaning. Well, they're both very interesting, though I'm much more sympathetic to Camus these days.

And not at all spooky, haha.

Maybe Sarte too yeah, I don't really know where to start with him but I was recommended to read him by someone else so maybe that means I should do it? It's not statistically significant until three.

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe Sarte too yeah, I don't really know where to start with him but I was recommended to read him by someone else so maybe that means I should do it? It's not statistically significant until three.

The best starting place is probably Existentialism is a Humanism--it's kind of an extended essay introducing his thought, short and relatively straight-forward.

After that, I would go straight to his literature. The major works are No Exit and Nausea, though I've read a couple of the other plays also. I'd need to go back and reread them, though, since they've kind of melded together and I'm not even sure what all the titles are in English.

 

[Zoness]

The best starting place is probably Existentialism is a Humanism--it's kind of an extended essay introducing his thought, short and relatively straight-forward.

After that, I would go straight to his literature. The major works are No Exit and Nausea, though I've read a couple of the other plays also. I'd need to go back and reread them, though, since they've kind of melded together and I'm not even sure what all the titles are in English.

That feel when Existentialism is a Humanism was already on of my long reading so I bumped it up; will report results lol. Let me know if you have any more questions about my religious practice.

 

[Noxot]

A Christian is saved By God.No Christian commits apostasy.

People say many things. Some are deceived
1jn2:
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us;
for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us:
but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

people interpret the scriptures according to the spirits that suggest the meaning of it to them.

that verse is speaking of spiritual growth and refinement.

yes, the evil spirits went out of me because they pretended to be angels of light. but in the light of better angels and God they were shown to be suffering and insane beings. thus as I matured as a christian I developed a capacity to discern between good and evil.