What de-conversion feels like

[Dragons87]

I deconverted in spite of myself

Lol. Don't really get what it means...hahahaha.

No. I'm quite confident I will never ever de-convert.

 

[LibertyChic]

Lol. Don't really get what it means...hahahaha.

I can understand that. I used to be extremely puzzled when I heard of church members "deconverting" and leaving the faith. It simply didn't make any sense to me.

No. I'm quite confident I will never ever de-convert.

I hope you don't. It's not the easiest thing in the world to go through.

 

[HummingbirdSong]

I accepted Christ for the first time at 12, and then had another profound experiance at a fellowship of Christian Athletes camp when I was 16. My father had retired from the Army and became a Southren Baptist Preacher when I was 13, I accepted everything completly. My only problem with Christian theology was that God would reject the sincear seeker who hadn't been as fortunate as I was to grow up in a Christian home. Over the years this aspect of my belief led me to embrace Universalism, the idea that God would not discriminate against anyone who sought to understand "The Great Mystery." I began to view my religion as a tool, that allowed me to understand the unknowable in some fashion and held onto it because I didn't believe that there was anything better out there.

That all changed when I was introduced to the idea of Goddess, all of a sudden a whole part of me that didn't seem to be fully engaged or satisfied was drawn into Spiritual ecstasy. I was terrorised to completely abandon a belief that I had been taught was my only ticket out of hellfire and damnation however my Love for the Divine feminine was greater than my fear. I began to understand the role of Jesus in my life differantly also, he was a wise teacher and an older brother to me that I still love greatly however I could no longer accept that any such thing as seperation from God could ever exist. The who sin/redemption game wasn't what Jesus was about, what he was about was Love and Compassion.

Despite it's many wonderous teachings the Bible was a corrupted instrument, assembled in the interests of those who wanted to build Empires. What could not be corrupted though was the Nature of God as revealed in Nature. I turned toward a Path that drew it's inspiration from the Nature instead of written texts and Scriptures. I started out in Wicca and studied it for many years before gradualy shifting into a path of journying and exploration through Shamanic States of Consiousness. I'm still seeking, learning and basking in that same great wonderous Mystery of Love and Compassion that is Goddess and God.

Good post. We have quite a bit in common

 

[MQTA]

Yes, I was truely Christian.

I don't see myself as having been deconverted either, I simply grew out of Christianity. I had profound and important spiritual experiances as a Christian, my Spiritual life has been one of continued growth, while I was a Christian and then when I moved beyond Christianity.

Excellent! I wish I could draw diagrams, like Venn Diagrams, so illustrate this. The value added wasn't lost, you don't forget your history, every step of the way builds upon the next.

 

[Cat59]

I hope you don't. It's not the easiest thing in the world to go through.

I wouldn't wish this sudden type of jolting realisation on anyone else either. But there are many things in life that require loss and struggle to adapt to and if it happens, it's just something that has to be faced. And in my case (though I'm not sure how this goes generally), there was some sort of co-operation with the process, a willingness to entertain the possibility that I might be wrong. By putting my faith in god to reveal to me the truth, I knew I would open myself up to the possibility that if I was wrong, and god wasn't there, I might find out. That scared me enormously, but I couldn't help testing it all out. But I could have resisted at that point and continued in my faith.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thank you all for sharing the "path" or progress of "de-conversion." Does one ultimately turn to atheistic existentialism as a practical worldview? I am assuming that none of you are nihilists, so what has replaced ultimate meaning?

There are many more possibilities than nihilism and existentialism.

I'm a eudaimonist, which means that the flourishing -- the growth and fulfillment -- of the human individual is the "ultimate meaning" for me. While I don't believe in divine purposes, and I believe that all purposes are chosen by human beings, I'm not an existentialist because I regard some purposes as mattering more to one's flourishing than others. In other words, one's selection of a person mission in life is not something arbitrary, even if there is no divine plan involved.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[ClementofRome]

There are many more possibilities than nihilism and existentialism.

I'm a eudaimonist, which means that the flourishing -- the growth and fulfillment -- of the human individual is the "ultimate meaning" for me. While I don't believe in divine purposes, and I believe that all purposes are chosen by human beings, I'm not an existentialist because I regard some purposes as mattering more to one's flourishing than others. In other words, one's selection of a person mission in life is not something arbitrary, even if there is no divine plan involved.

I hope that answers your question.

But it appears that you are just splitting hairs with your label. It I was to say, no I am not a Christian, I am a Calvinist....you would say to me....good grief, are not all Calvinists Christians? So, I must say are not all eudaimonists existentialists? If the simpliest definition of existentialism is "existence has self-made meaning" then eudaimonism must fall under this larger heading, no?

Thanks for sharing....this is all very helpful.
Clem

 

[Grizzly]

But it appears that you are just splitting hairs with your label. It I was to say, no I am not a Christian, I am a Calvinist....you would say to me....good grief, are not all Calvinists Christians? So, I must say are not all eudaimonists existentialists? If the simpliest definition of existentialism is "existence has self-made meaning" then eudaimonism must fall under this larger heading, no?

Thanks for sharing....this is all very helpful.
Clem

I'm not a philosopher, so I am not certain what I am about to say is correct. But I think existentialism means that inherently life is without meaning and so we are made to develop are own meaning, even though we know it to be subjective. Therefore I think its possible to be a eudaimonist but not an existentialist if you believe that eudaimonism is the ultimate meaning, and that it applies to everyone.

But I could certainly be wrong.

As for me, I would not describe myself as an existentialist, and I certainly reject postmodernism. I would probably consider myself a rationalist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, I must say are not all eudaimonists existentialists?

No eudaimonists are existentialists. None. These are incompatible categories.

If the simpliest definition of existentialism is "existence has self-made meaning" then eudaimonism must fall under this larger heading, no?

This is a little better:

"What then is Existentialism? There exists now a widely accepted definition of existentialism. It is that existentialism is the philosophic standpoint which gives priority to existence over essence. What is meant by this is that existentialism gives priority in significance to existence, in the sense of my existence as a conscious subject, rather than to any essence which may be assigned to me, any definition of me, any explination of me by science or philosophy or religion or politics. Existentialism affirms the ulitmate signifigance, the primacy of my existence as this flickering point of consciousness of myself and of objects of which I am aware, my existence as this conscious being against all efforts to define me, to reduce me to a Platonic essence, or to a Cartesian mental substance, or to a Hegelian carrier of the spirit of my culture, or to a scientific neurological mechanism, or to a social security number. Whereas classical and modern rationalism have regarded rational essences or self-evident ideas as having primacy over individual existence. Whereas rationalism claims that the individual existence can be comprehended by the concept or essence or by any conceptual system."
--T.Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest, page 328--

Eudaimonism rejects the idea that one should "give priority to existence over essence". The nature -- the essence -- of a human being is very important in determining what matters to the individual and what values and meanings that individual ought to have in life. While a human being may construct any meaning he or she is personal convinced about (and this is just a simple observation that any Christian can legitimately make about others as well), this doesn't make those meanings justified or appropriate. Just as Christians may believe that it is God that determines which meanings in life are appropriate, for the eudaimonist it is the nature of human life that does this. Some pure existentialist choice to create meaning in the face of objective meaninglessness is foreign to eudaimonic thought.

 

[Rae]

Prior to your deconversion, were you truly a Christian?

--Of course. It's insulting of anyone to assume we weren't.

It appears to me that to reject Christianity as false would be to have never truly been a believer to begin with

--No. That's wrong. If someone changes political philosophies, were they never a Republican because they're now a Democrat? Of course not. Do you question, if someone deconverts from another religion and converts to Christianity, that they were a true member of their former religion? I would greatly doubt it (though I will accept a "yes" answer if you have one to give). Why the special pleading for Christianity, then?

 

[spirit1st]

BEING A CHRISTAIN is BEING CHRIST LIKE!
THAT BEING WOULD HAVE TOHAVE BEEN REBORN.FEW EVEN UNDERSTAND THIS!MUCH LESS .would reject it ,once it had happed!
Most people have no idea what a christain even is?Just going to a church or reading the bible.make no one a CHRISTAIN!
people are so confused as to being a christain.MANY ARE CALLED?FEW CHOOSEN.THOSE CHOOSEN ARE THE ONES WITH THE REBIRTH,THE OTHERS MAY HAVE BEEN CALLED!But rejected the calling and now are just waiting for there place to fall!

 

[Eudaimonist]

BEING A CHRIST is BEING CHRIST LIKE!

DO YOU HAVE TO SHOUT? WE HEAR YOU JUST FINE!

 

[spirit1st]

I didn"t shout?Maybe ?You heard from another place?
Maybe your heart shouted at you???
Anyway?have a nice 1st day of a new year!

 

[Rae]

I tend to believe if someone is truly God's chosen, he or she will use proper English grammar and spelling, not all capital letters (which is shouting on the Internet) and unnecessary punctuation.

 

[ClementofRome]

--Of course. It's insulting of anyone to assume we weren't.


--No. That's wrong. If someone changes political philosophies, were they never a Republican because they're now a Democrat? Of course not. Do you question, if someone deconverts from another religion and converts to Christianity, that they were a true member of their former religion? I would greatly doubt it (though I will accept a "yes" answer if you have one to give). Why the special pleading for Christianity, then?

I didn't assume much....I was simply asking a question. Yes, I did go on to give what I thought to be a reasonable example which you all have refuted. I am not sure your political analogy works in the refutation though. If you said that you were a believer in John Kerry and then you suddenly came to realize that John Kerry did not exist, so therefore you become a believer in W, then I would say....good example. However, for someone to be a believer in something and then later come to believe that this something/someone did not exist, means that it was a false belief in a nothing. I think that Grizzly's Santa Claus analogy is closer.

As for pleading for Christianity....have I been doing that? I don't think so. I have just been here asking some good "deconverts" some questions about their deconversion. I will leave the pleading for Christianity up to spirit1st I suppose.

 

[ClementofRome]

I tend to believe if someone is truly God's chosen, he or she will use proper English grammar and spelling, not all capital letters (which is shouting on the Internet) and unnecessary punctuation.

Now, that is a good one!

(Note the proper use of grammar and punctuation by this elect individual.)

 

[Grizzly]

I didn"t shout?Maybe ?You heard from another place?
Maybe your heart shouted at you???
Anyway?have a nice 1st day of a new year!

Hey spirit1st,

Just in case you weren't aware, it's a common understanding that when you type in CAPS it means you are yelling or shouting....

Cheers

Grizzly

 

[ClementofRome]

No eudaimonists are existentialists. None. These are incompatible categories.



Eudaimonism rejects the idea that one should "give priority to existence over essence". The nature -- the essence -- of a human being is very important in determining what matters to the individual and what values and meanings that individual ought to have in life. While a human being may construct any meaning he or she is personal convinced about (and this is just a simple observation that any Christian can legitimately make about others as well), this doesn't make those meanings justified or appropriate. Just as Christians may believe that it is God that determines which meanings in life are appropriate, for the eudaimonist it is the nature of human life that does this. Some pure existentialist choice to create meaning in the face of objective meaninglessness is foreign to eudaimonic thought.

Thank you for that clarification. So the eudaimonist does believe in an absolute truth? A rejection of the subjective/objective crisis of existentialism?

Clem

 

[Grizzly]

I didn't assume much....I was simply asking a question. Yes, I did go on to give what I thought to be a reasonable example which you all have refuted. I am not sure your political analogy works in the refutation though. If you said that you were a believer in John Kerry and then you suddenly came to realize that John Kerry did not exist, so therefore you become a believer in W, then I would say....good example. However, for someone to be a believer in something and then later come to believe that this something/someone did not exist, means that it was a false belief in a nothing. I think that Grizzly's Santa Claus analogy is closer.

Ok, let's try this one. How about grown adults who deconvert from some other religion and become Christians? For example, someone who was believed in Hinduism but after thought and study (and perhaps marriage) converted to Christianity. Does this mean that person was never a Hindu? All those times they were fervently praying to Ganesh or Brahma they weren't really doing it? Were they not true Hindi's?

I don't think so. I believe these people truly and deeply believed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thank you for that clarification. So the eudaimonist does believe in an absolute truth? A rejection of the subjective/objective crisis of existentialism?

Would you please clarify what you mean by "absolute truth" and what you see as the "subjective/objective crisis of existentialism"?