On apostates, how seriously do you take them?

[Jin-Roh]

There's currently a thread going on in the Christian only forums about how seriously we take someone when they say "I used to be a Christian." There's varied reasons why some might believe them or not give the person in question the benefit of a doubt, but none of that is the subject of discussion.

How do non-Christians understand this kind of thing? If you're an Atheist and always been one, what are your thoughts from some other Atheist who says they used to be a sincere Christian?

Even if you not an Athiest, what do you think of an Apostate from any religion? Do you believe that they took it seriously? How do you interperet the said event?

[Darth Executor]

From my observations:

Dumb Christians who deconvert end up dumb atheists.
Converts (from both sides) are far more energetic in the defense of their newly acquired faith. Convert's zeal and all taht.
Christian ex-atheists tend to be excellent defenders of Christianity, and much better than life long Christians.
With atheists it's the opposite. People who have been atheists for the majority (if not all) of their life tend to be far better defenders and critics than freshly deconverted Christians.

[mentored1]

Well met...

I've reached the point where finding conclusions about someone's sincerity - in regard to spirituality - is a futile gesture. I take them at face value and move on; I'm more interested in how they explain their beliefs and articulate their own understanding of it. Unfortunately this is the area that is often neglected. Not every believer is an apologist (very few perhaps) nor is every skeptic (even fewer).

What Darth mentions is spot on. Any new believer or skeptic is bound to have a certain enthusiasm about their new "discovery" and this will come out in everything from rambling nonsense to semi-prophetic utterings. Thus it stands to reason that time is required to fully ascertain someone's spirituality and how well they understand it.

Take care

[Jin-Roh]

Well met...

I've reached the point where finding conclusions about someone's sincerity - in regard to spirituality - is a futile gesture. I take them at face value and move on; I'm more interested in how they explain their beliefs and articulate their own understanding of it. Unfortunately this is the area that is often neglected. Not every believer is an apologist (very few perhaps) nor is every skeptic (even fewer).

What Darth mentions is spot on. Any new believer or skeptic is bound to have a certain enthusiasm about their new "discovery" and this will come out in everything from rambling nonsense to semi-prophetic utterings. Thus it stands to reason that time is required to fully ascertain someone's spirituality and how well they understand it.

Take care

You think that their are less (per captia) Skeptic apologists than Christian ones? I guess that kind of makes sense, but why do you think it's that way?

[Tickle Me Mercury]

You think that their are less (per captia) Skeptic apologists than Christian ones? I guess that kind of makes sense, but why do you think it's that way?

I think it's because skeptics tend to be more apathetic. Christians are under a divine charge to spread the Good News, where as atheists (or unorthodox agnostics) are under no such charge. From personal experience, I can say that most of my friends who are atheists (the majority of my friends), are the way I was when I was an atheist—dismissive and insulting if the subject comes up.

[Jin-Roh]

I think it's because skeptics tend to be more apathetic. Christians are under a divine charge to spread the Good News, where as atheists (or unorthodox agnostics) are under no such charge. From personal experience, I can say that most of my friends who are atheists (the majority of my friends), are the way I was when I was an atheist—dismissive and insulting if the subject comes up.

That's exactly why I think skeptics aren't usually apologists. i.e. Ignore religion and get on with living.

Of course, this apathy can often be why many atheists come of as stupid to Christians.

[Alien]

That's exactly why I think skeptics aren't usually apologists. i.e. Ignore religion and get on with living.

Of course, this apathy can often be why many atheists come of as stupid to Christians.

A word was coined once that I like: "apatheist". It refers to the kind of person who just doesn't think about religion from one week to another, unless his nose is rubbed in it by something.

This person might typically have grown up in a culture where religion is not a big factor (my own homeland of England springs to mind), and was never introduced to it, positively or negatively, by his parents. He's an atheist by definition because he doesn't believe in god(s) but it's more a lack of interest than a reasoned decision. If you ask him, he'll probably say that religion is something that mattered a lot years ago, but has been discarded by most right thinking modern people as irrelevant. He lumps all religions together in his mind, Christianity is just as dumb as Islam or Shintoism. You won't find him discussing religion on the internet, as he can't see any reason to do so.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

That's exactly why I think skeptics aren't usually apologists. i.e. Ignore religion and get on with living.

Of course, this apathy can often be why many atheists come of as stupid to Christians.

And, because the majority of them can, in fact, be very stupid. But, that's a trend that runs through all religious beliefs. Most "Christians" that I have dealt with in my daily life are "in name only." They have no understanding whatsoever of theory and theology behind their chosen religion, other than that they go to church on Christmas and Easter. I don't think TWeb offers an accurate cross section of world religious belief: people here tend to be learned, tend to own knowledge, tend to be willing to engage in dialogue with people who are criticizing their beliefs. Whereas out in the real world, people tend to be ignorant, dogmatic, and close minded, be they theists or atheists.

To the point, apostates tend to also be in this catagory. So, from our oh-so-lofty position, it might be difficult to take such people seriously, because how can they be apostate from a religion they never took the time to truly understand? It's difficult to put things into the persective we are used to on TWeb because most people aren't as introspective, as, I suspect, we are. They just go through the motions, and when that's the approach, the motions themselves really don't matter, do they?

[mentored1]

Well met Jin

You think that their are less (per captia) Skeptic apologists than Christian ones? I guess that kind of makes sense, but why do you think it's that way?

It's been alluded to by a couple of others already - and the notion that skeptics aren't as invested as Christians may be a likely one but I don't think it really captures the problem.

For one, there are a great many Christians who would rather live their faith than explain it. I don't say that in a derogatory sense - in fact, it's probably a richer way to experience faith. Nonetheless apologetics requires practice in explaining the dynamics of faith as much as just experiencing it.

Perhaps the reason why I suppose skeptic "apologists" to be in fewer in number than their faithful counterparts has to do with substance. A Christian has a wealth of tradition at their disposal: whether they study any myriad of Biblical pursuits, Christian history, theology, etc - there is a great amount of substance, a vast pool to draw from.

I'm not suggesting that the Great Commission is irrelevant but the great many topics for a believer to direct themselves to means divergent interests and personalities in the community of believers have a greater likelihood to find something that interests them personally while retaining that communal sense.

Granted that skeptics have science - but how many skeptics really understand and can explain science to others? Scientists haven't done a tremendous job of popularizing the more difficult studies and due to the nature of scientific inquiry there is always a barrage of dissent coming from all angles. The sense of a community is more fragmented as a result.

The lack of a common foundation among skeptics and the scattered specialities that are not part of some theistic framework just doesn't have the "glue" that Christian tradition does. Without some framework the majority of human beings just sort of 'drift' and never really dive into anything far enough to understand and be able to explain it clearly.

Take care

[sylas]

There's currently a thread going on in the Christian only forums about how seriously we take someone when they say "I used to be a Christian." There's varied reasons why some might believe them or not give the person in question the benefit of a doubt, but none of that is the subject of discussion.

How do non-Christians understand this kind of thing? If you're an Atheist and always been one, what are your thoughts from some other Atheist who says they used to be a sincere Christian?

Even if you not an Athiest, what do you think of an Apostate from any religion? Do you believe that they took it seriously? How do you interperet the said event?

I was very unimpressed by the thread in the Christian only forum. I think it was shallow, and suffers badly from being placed in such a context.

I think people are extremely diverse. There are all kinds of reasons people adopt or reject or change their religious beliefs. The sweeping generalizations of the thread in the Christian only forums looks to me to be whistling in the dark. The claim that none of us ex-Christians were "really" Christians is actually quite offensive.

My own story is that I was a Christian. My status as a Christian parallels all kinds of people who are accepted as Christians here in TheologyWeb without question.

I'm not really interesting in defending myself against the kind of presumptuous inquisition that periodically gets applied in these debates; particularly when they are really just an attempt to disparage my prior beliefs or standing, so as to shore up the idea that "real" belief cannot ever be lost. This mirrors also the same kind of in-fighting that goes on right now between some believers. It is one of the more ungly aspects of introspective and self-absorbed forms of Christian exclusivism.

However, I am quite happy to answer questions from people who are truly interested in the answers, rather than just trying to find some way to pigeonhole me in a way they find less threatening. Even though you started that other thread, I have no doubt that you personally are inquiring in good faith and are honest in trying to sort out your position on the matter. So don't be put off from asking -- you're one of the good guys and I'll be very happy to expand on matters if you have a question.

Here's a bit of roughed out personal background...

I grew up in a Christian home, started to think on the matter for myself, adopted my faith as my own, and went on to become a significant and active young adult in the Church in my own right. I was in no doubt of my own status as a Christian, and was recognized as a Christian by others.

Second guessing my theology would be silly. I see this going on all the time between Christians as well, with different individuals disparaging one another for having the wrong styles of belief. That's just one of the things we deal with in the church (I say "we", thinking of my own position when I was an active Christian.)

My beliefs were somewhat "liberal". I was a Christian all through my science degree at University; and never found that side of things to be any problem. We had a number of charasmatics involved in the church, some of whom were inspiring and some of whom were just silly and a real problem. I was not charasmatic. I did have one "experience" of more or less religious hysteria, but it did not actually mean as much to me personally as my own reflections.

Externally, I was quite obvious as a Christian. I was a leader of the youth club (I was around 22 or so; and the club was aged up to around 16 or so). I was in the council of elders of the congregation. I was active in Christian groups on campus. I used to go on beach missions with scripture union. I was an active member of the young adult group. Internally, I was not at all conflicted in any of this. It was the natural expression of my own faith.

The change came a few years later, around age 25 or so. It was an intellectual issue for me, arising out of study at the church on creeds and the bible.

Basically, if people want to say that my loss of faith means I was never really a Christian, I think then that they need to deal with the question of how sure they can be that they themselves are really a Christian. The diversity of beliefs once held by ex-Christians is immense. I don't think there is any background at all that will let you look to any of your fellow Christians and be confident that they won't be one of those to lose their faith in time.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Jin-Roh]

I was very unimpressed by the thread in the Christian only forum. I think it was shallow, and suffers badly from being placed in such a context.

I think people are extremely diverse. There are all kinds of reasons people adopt or reject or change their religious beliefs. The sweeping generalizations of the thread in the Christian only forums looks to me to be whistling in the dark. The claim that none of us ex-Christians were "really" Christians is actually quite offensive.

My own story is that I was a Christian. My status as a Christian parallels all kinds of people who are accepted as Christians here in TheologyWeb without question.

I'm not really interesting in defending myself against the kind of presumptuous inquisition that periodically gets applied in these debates; particularly when they are really just an attempt to disparage my prior beliefs or standing, so as to shore up the idea that "real" belief cannot ever be lost. This mirrors also the same kind of in-fighting that goes on right now between some believers. It is one of the more ungly aspects of introspective and self-absorbed forms of Christian exclusivism.

However, I am quite happy to answer questions from people who are truly interested in the answers, rather than just trying to find some way to pigeonhole me in a way they find less threatening. Even though you started that other thread, I have no doubt that you personally are inquiring in good faith and are honest in trying to sort out your position on the matter. So don't be put off from asking -- you're one of the good guys and I'll be very happy to expand on matters if you have a question.

Here's a bit of roughed out personal background...

I grew up in a Christian home, started to think on the matter for myself, adopted my faith as my own, and went on to become a significant and active young adult in the Church in my own right. I was in no doubt of my own status as a Christian, and was recognized as a Christian by others.

Second guessing my theology would be silly. I see this going on all the time between Christians as well, with different individuals disparaging one another for having the wrong styles of belief. That's just one of the things we deal with in the church (I say "we", thinking of my own position when I was an active Christian.)

My beliefs were somewhat "liberal". I was a Christian all through my science degree at University; and never found that side of things to be any problem. We had a number of charasmatics involved in the church, some of whom were inspiring and some of whom were just silly and a real problem. I was not charasmatic. I did have one "experience" of more or less religious hysteria, but it did not actually mean as much to me personally as my own reflections.

Externally, I was quite obvious as a Christian. I was a leader of the youth club (I was around 22 or so; and the club was aged up to around 16 or so). I was in the council of elders of the congregation. I was active in Christian groups on campus. I used to go on beach missions with scripture union. I was an active member of the young adult group. Internally, I was not at all conflicted in any of this. It was the natural expression of my own faith.

The change came a few years later, around age 25 or so. It was an intellectual issue for me, arising out of study at the church on creeds and the bible.

Basically, if people want to say that my loss of faith means I was never really a Christian, I think then that they need to deal with the question of how sure they can be that they themselves are really a Christian. The diversity of beliefs once held by ex-Christians is immense. I don't think there is any background at all that will let you look to any of your fellow Christians and be confident that they won't be one of those to lose their faith in time.

Cheers -- Sylas

Well, Sylas, as I said in the forum, I'm not personally OSAS. Stories like yours are part of the reason why. I wouldn't have to worry about giving someone like you the benefit of the doubt, becuase you haven't really left me any, if you get my meaning.

What I had more in mind for my original thread was people who say, "I used to be a Christian" and leave it at that. Take the "ex-crucifist" thread in the Muslim forum for instance...

[sylas]

What I had more in mind for my original thread was people who say, "I used to be a Christian" and leave it at that.

My view... if someone tells you no more than than they used to be a Christian, then you don't have a whole lot to go on, and should not presume on the basis of stereotypes. The best thing is just to suspend judgement. Take on board that they used to be a Christian; but that you don't have any detail on particular theology or how active they were. If you really want to know more... ask. If you don't ask, then don't presume.

People who call themselves Christians right now are very diverse. Same for people who say they used to be Christians.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you're an Atheist and always been one, what are your thoughts from some other Atheist who says they used to be a sincere Christian?

I truly do not understand the value of the question.

[Jin-Roh]

I truly do not understand the value of the question.

Well I guess part of the reason I ask is if atheist divide between "being a Christian" and "being raised a Christian." For instance, if you wanted to hear what it is like to be Christian from someone who used to be one, would you take their word for it or would you suspend judgment until they showed you that they sincerely believed rather than just passively accepting what they were surronded with growing up?

[djdavo]

Well I guess part of the reason I ask is if atheist divide between "being a Christian" and "being raised a Christian." For instance, if you wanted to hear what it is like to be Christian from someone who used to be one, would you take their word for it or would you suspend judgment until they showed you that they sincerely believed rather than just passively accepting what they were surronded with growing up?

to answer your original question, it depends what camp you're in:

calvinists would say that person was never really a christian (IE regenerate),but only playing the part.

if you believe you can lose your salvation, then it may be that person was truly a believer and 'backslid'.

of course, maybe that person is still saved and will come back to a serious relationship with God. only God knows exactly how that works :)