Search This Blog

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Another De-Conversion Story

There is an interesting video series on youtube by a former Christian in which he painstakingly details the reasons for his de-conversion. Its in many parts but I what I have seen of it is done very well. I especially liked this clip below in which he explains that its not just one thing that causes a Christian to de-convert. There might be one thing that was the "final straw" but there are always multiple reasons. He also shows how that when a Christian doubts one aspect of their religion, they can rely on other parts of it to continue believing. Another important fact he mentions is that de-conversion typically takes years. Its not something that happens overnight.


  1. it took me under a year but I had some help along the way via the blogger A-Unicornist. It started with concerns regarding the O.T. brutality orchastrated by god...genocide, infantice yadayadayada. I saw the Stoning of Soraya M. and that really just about did it for me. Then, it moved on to the theory of evolution and how science is being attacked by political fronts like the ID group. I always thought that evolution was fake and far from universally accepted among scientists. Any scientists that agreed with it were surely under demonic influences...

    on a side note:
    I'm talking to a Christian philosopher now and he claims that the autrocities of the O.T., including the genocide of the Amalekites, can be explained by considering the genre in which the story was told. I need more clarification by what he means there. Or, he says there is some argument that they are allegorical stories. Lastly, he suggested that it was simply hyperbole. "Kill em all," was merely an exaggeration and there is evidence that not everyone was killed but, in the end, he is trying to suggest that it was anything but literal. I don't know if anyone can help me with the above arguments. I'm accustomed to reading the Bible as trying to be taken literally in places where it seems to clearly be literal and metaphorical in places where it's clearly not literal. In the case of the Amalekite battle, it seems very literal when god commanded to retaliate against them for something that happend 100 years previously. Otherwise, it seems like a case of special pleading.

  2. Confidential for Now,

    I don't know if you are referring to Matt Flanagan but I have dealt with his view that the language is mere hyperbole and was never intended to be taken literally. See this post and also see here and comment section.

  3. Thank you much for the links, those were most helpful. I was also wondering if you could give me your thoughts on the term "Progressive Revelation". The philosopher I'm talking to throws that term out every time I bring up a given autrocity of the O.T.. My opponent suggests that the people are to blame for the way God handled them because of their "backward" ways. It was due to their immorality that a fuller revelation of god could not be revealed. They would not have been able to handle that degree of morality all at once. They required the severe punishment they received to get them to fall into line. So the argument goes...