Did you ever have a relationship with Jesus Christ?
I most emphatically felt like I had a special and deep relationship with God. It was my entire identity: my lifestyle, my worldview, my decision influence, and a connection to almost every single person I love in this world. It’s a very special thing, and you all understand that.
Oh yes, I was a very serious, thinking Christian who loved Jesus very much. Many of you knew me as such since I’ve been blogging, writing, and discussing my faith for years–ever-vocal and always searching out answers.
Why did you deconvert?
In short, my deconversion came from examining the claims and fundamental arguments for God & Christianity from the outside instead of the inside. I finally found my courage to be open to the idea that all my assumptions and all that I’d been taught my whole life might be missing the mark. Once I got past that fear of being wrong or mistaken, my ideas began to change…
I’ve included a longer example not to try to convert anyone or pressure to think the way I do… just as an explanation :)
It’s like the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning (I tried to explain it in my own words, but I stink at it, so I got some help):
In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms – simple true statements about the way the world works.
[Julia’s example: “God exists and all comes from God”]
Then you use these axioms to build your logical system of nature. If your axioms are true, everything that follows will be true
[Julia‘s example: “if God exists then people act morally because God gave them morals.”]
The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works.
[Julia‘s example: “People in the process of dying often have similar feelings of lightness, calm, and visions of light or tunnels. Let’s study it and then hopefully find the connections.” No assumptions of anything supernatural, just observations of the natural.]
In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true
[Julia‘s example: “papal authority is logical—and thus must be true—if you accept the axiom that Jesus made Peter the first head of the church”].
In the inductive/scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.
[Julia‘s example: “evidence from geology, astronomy, physics, biology, etc. illustrate the age of earth as ~4.5 billion years old. observations in nature disagree with the idea of a young earth and literal 6 day creation, thus those ideas are be abandoned”]
See? Phew! Told you it was a long example. Basically I’ve tried to switch from deductive reasoning about life’s truths to inductive reasoning. Evidence and observation without assumptions or needing to make the evidence fit.