Has Anyone Been Called A Liar Because They Left The Faith?

[Looking4Answers]

Has anyone been accused of being a liar because they left the faith? As some of you know, I was once a Baptist minister and even served as a missionary on the foreign field. Most people from Baptist circles believe in the doctrine of "once saved, always saved". This means that if someone comes into a genuine relationship with Christ (saved) then they can do nothing to lose their salvation. I was "saved" back in 1991. As a result of my fairly recent de-conversion, some that have known me in the past are now attacking me and claiming that I have "always" been a liar. They believe that a honest to goodness believer could never lose their salvation and, as a result, I must have been faking it for the last 17+ years!

 

Let me see ... I gave up the potential of lucrative jobs to serve in the ministry. I left the my own country (the USA) which I love and fought for as a Marine and went to another country (one in which there were numerous terror attacks, mind you) to help a church there and to spread the Gospel, leaving my extended family behind and all that I knew ... because I was FAKING IT!

 

Now, if I had been one of these Benny Hin types and was making a fortune, then I can see someone saying that. In fact, if I was someone who was living a lie for the last 17+ years and I was living like Benny Hin, then I probably would not mind keeping the lie going. After all, it would be a very lucrative lie, would it not?

 

Has anyone else had these types of accusations? Have people just been confused about your de-conversion? Did they just try to ignore you? Or did some try to accuse you of various things? I'm curious.

[GraphicsGuy]

All of the above. Xians have expected me to resolve my own experiences FOR THEM since they know deep down they have no answers for me and can't explain WHY.

[godlessgrrl]

I'd say the accusation of "you were never really a Christian" basically amounts to calling an ex-believer a liar.

 

That's a common one, and yes I've gotten it.

[Vendredie]

It's good ol' hindsight bias. "I shuddaknown it wasn't gonna work out" "I shuddaknown he was a liar."

 

It's stupid, and it's unfair.

 

Ignore those people. They don't know you. They're trying to justify why you, a Baptist minister, could have left the faith. It's amazing how many people say they're tolerant but then can't deal with the fact you don't believe in a God or any sort of religion. My own freaking parents, for example. They want some explanation as to why you of all people could have possibly left the faith... and the most "reasonable" one they can come up with is that you were lying about it the whole time.

[Amethyst]

Was labeled "not really a Christian" and such.

 

People are stupid. That's what it amounts to.

[florduh]

Honestly, I occasionally run into members of my old church and they barely speak to me, much less make accusations that might start a conversation.

 

My former pastor and I were pretty close. I saw him a few weeks ago and we talked about basketball, motorcycles and growing old. The only religious reference he made was the parting shot - "Don't forget, the church is still open on Sundays!" That's why he is still okay in my book.

[agnosticator]

The one accusation that I repeatedly hear is "you must be mad at god". Next in line would be "So you weren't treated well. Why blame god?". Christians cannot understand any type of intellectual rejection of religion. They understand rejection on emotional grounds, and believe something is very wrong with a person who throws away their faith.

[Looking4Answers]

They understand rejection on emotional grounds, and believe something is very wrong with a person who throws away their faith.

 

That is a simple and incredibly interesting observation! Many who say they study the Bible claim to be thinking and reasonable people. However, in cases like this (and many others) they act in an emotional manner instead of via reason and logic.

[Casey]

I was never really subjected to this sort of thing, perhaps because in my part of Australia we don't take religion as seriously as some Americans do. However I have some explanations as to why it happens. The first lies in an old catholic saying I first heard in boarding school many years ago:

 

There is no greater heretic, no greater infidel, than one of the faithful that has fallen into error!

 

And if one thinks about it, a lot of politicians subscribe to that theory too; although they may express it in totally unprintable language. Many criminals also think like that, especially those who belong to organized criminal families. Basically, no one likes turncoats, hence the shunning, the cold shoulder or "silent treatment", and/or the accusations of lying. These things, I suppose, arise out of a part of human nature that says, "If I go down, I'm not going alone, you're coming along for the ride!" That the loyalty is misplaced in this instance makes no difference whatsoever.

 

The second reason is the old "No true Scotsman" fallacy. That's thought to have started when some Scotsmen were discussing a terrible lust murder that had happened in England. The press was full of the lurid details of the crime and one fellow was heard to say, "No Scotsman would hae done sich a thing!" Right then another happened to recall a certain Peter Manuel who had been hanged not long prior for just such a crime, one of many so the authorities said, and they were almost certainly correct. Manuel was a Scot as it happened.

 

The answer to this was, "Aye, but he wasnae a true Scotsman!" In other words, there are some groups of people who think that they, as a group, are better than the rest of humanity. Thus any member of such a group is held to be automatically incapable of doing certain acts, whether such an act be a crime or something as simple as leaving the group. If a group member does such a thing despite all expectations to the contrary, then the group's reaction to this is denial, hence the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You can substitute the words, "No true christian" and it holds the same meaning.

 

One last observation. Jesus spoke of his followers being like sheep many times. Sheep hang together in groups known to us as "mobs". It sometimes happens that an individual sheep becomes fly-blown, or a number of sheep become fly-blown. However such animals are easily spotted even in large mobs, because the sheep which are not fly-blown will actually force the afflicted animals to the tail (rear) of the mob. Thus, if you have a dog that knows its business, it's easy enough to cut out such an animal and capture it so that it may be treated. Once it is treated, its mob will accept it again. We may then suppose christians to act in very similar ways when one of their number becomes fly-blown, so to speak, although they won't necessarily accept their former believer again.

 

Just some thoughts, hope they're not too silly.

Casey

[Looking4Answers]

Nope. They are not too silly. I appreciate you sharing them .

 

I think there is something else going on as well. I think that this is a defensive reaction. If someone where to say that I really believed at one time and now I do not, then that opens the possibility that one can actually lose their salvation. For those that believe in the doctrine of eternal security, that is a huge problem. Also, as a former minister, it is possible that I just might be taken seriously by someone that was in the church where I ministered or one of the churches where people in the congregation know me. If someone from one of these churches were to start thinking about their faith, then that could cause others to consider de-conversion as well. It then becomes imperative that I be proven a liar. If they can cause enough doubt about my credibility then the "faithful" will just write me off and not consider my decision to leave as valid. Also, this causes people to not want to talk to me about my decision. If the "faithful" are convinced I am a liar then they most likely will not engage in meaningful conversation with me. This, in turn, reduces the possible "damage" I could cause.

[chefranden]

When a doctrine of the church is violated, the violator is at fault by definition. The doctrine of once saved always saved cannot be wrong, therefore you are a liar concerning your prior status. How else can they see it?

 

You sort of have the same problem. You perhaps think that your example should give them pause to question the doctrine. The belief being that the rational should trump the irrational. However that is not the case in human behavior. The rational seldom trumps the irrational.

[Jedah]

l4a:

 

I believe I stated this in another thread you posted in and you may have read it. Here's a restate:

 

The problem isn't so much that they are seriously stupid enough to believe that you were faking it all those years. It's very likely that deep down inside they know that such accusations are baseless and full of shit.

 

The problem is the fundamentalist mentality. Its like brainwashing. Here's an analogy:

 

Think of the human brain as a computer program. All the capabilities are there: a function that controls reason, a function loop for emotion, and various ways to store memory.

 

Now think of fundamentalism as a kind of virus that does two things: 1 ) it implants its own data into the memory, and 2 ) it disrupts any line of code from the emotion and reason loops causing them to error.

 

Essentially what you are left with is a twisted mind. Whenever the "faith" implanted by the fundamentalism is contradicted by reality, the fundamentalist virus disrupts all lines or reason and causes the victim to think "Reality is contradicting my faith. Since my faith cannot be possibly be wrong, reality must be wrong !". They aren't accusing you of lying because they actually want to, they do it because the mind virus within them forbids them from thinking any other way. They HAVE to think that you are lying. Doing so otherwise is simply not an option. There is no free will... that's why we call it mind control.

 

Rather then letting you jaw drop to the floor at the amazing stupidity, you could just start doing what I do: pity them. Their minds have been taken over and they lack the intellectual integrity to admit it to themselves. They are doomed to drown in their own blissful ideologies and die. Its not that they are stupid, just warped like you once were.

[ShackledNoMore]

I've noticed something similar for the camp that believes you CAN lose your salvation and forfeit your one use only forgiveness card: as much as they've emphasized that little point at other times, it conveniently disappears when they try to yank me back into the fold.

 

I've argued once or twice with members of this camp that their efforts were futile: by their own beliefs I was already on my way to hell, a done deal that cannot be changed (being an apostate that spoke in tongues, I either lost my salvation by turning from god after being truly saved, or by blaspheming the holy spirit when I was not truly saved). The time or two I did this, they never conceded that I was already condemned, but the mental gymnastics were incredible--one guy decided I was never saved, but I did not blaspheme the holy spirit because I would REALLY have to try to do that--mimicking a false glossolalia and falsely attributing it to the holy spirit was not enough. Someone else suggested that I was merely "backslidden" (really?) when I used this argument.

 

I gotten a minimal amount only of this from the OSAS camp, from efforts of random xians to proselytize to me (really minimal, because I'm not in the habit of engaging random xians to the point of discussing that I am an ex-c), or more abstractly, I am no doubt lumped in by apologists who have frequented this site as never having been a "true" xian, right along with all the other members here.

 

There is something I have been wondering, though, and I would like your take: I know I've seen at least one OSAS person, in defending his position to a non-OSAS person, argue something along the lines that he could murder someone tomorrow, die, and still go to heaven. Is that typical or is it a minority position? Do OSASers lump other sins in as evidence that a person was never "truly" saved, using the same "no true Scotsman" fallacy? It appears to me that apostasy seems to be a "special" sin with these sorts that will invalidate your salvation a lot quicker than any mean, brutal, or heinous acts will, which qualify for the magic forgiveness card. Or was this person atypical? With high divorce rates, infidelity rates, and other pretty bad sins against their own rules where you just here: "we're not perfect, just forgiven," apostasy really does seem to enjoy a "special" status. I think treating apostasy as a sign a person was never saved and all other sins by xians as weakness of the flesh, yielding to temptation, etc., is another form of mental gymnastics that necessarily goes along with xian faith.

[MaggieMae]

Is it crazy that the same argument has been used to tell me that I'm not really an ex-c? My family believes that I really truly was a Christian, so obviously I can't NOT be one now! Even though I haven't believed in a god for 6 years, it's all just a silly phase that will end sometime.

 

My name is in that book of life, and apparently it's far beyond me to get Jesus to erase the darned thing!

[Neon Genesis]

Yes, I've had Christians tell me I was never a "true" Christian before because a "true" Christian would never deconvert. I also agree it's a defensive mechanism. They can't handle the possibility that what they believe to be one of the few certain things they have in life could be a lie, so they create this defensive mechanism to help keep them in their comfort zone instead of embracing the harsh truth about reality. But I look at it this way that if Christianity isn't true, then they were never a "true" Christian, either. The only thing that really annoys me about this excuse is that it's not even biblical since even Jesus said it was possible to fall away, so where do they get this idea from anyway?

[Looking4Answers]

so where do they get this idea from anyway?

 

They get the idea from verses like the following from First John 2:19:

 

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.

[Deva]

They also get it from this passage:

 

John 10 -

 

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

 

Especially the line "no man is able to pluck them out of my hand". It is therefore considered impossible for those who have received Christ as savior to deconvert. Once saved, always saved.

[mwc]

My name is in that book of life, and apparently it's far beyond me to get Jesus to erase the darned thing!

The initial request to be added to the list may be done orally but to be removed you have to submit your request in writing. The last cloud is said to have ascended roughly 2000 years ago and no one can agree when further deliveries are scheduled. Sorry for any inconvenience.

 

mwc

[mwc]

so where do they get this idea from anyway?

 

They get the idea from verses like the following from First John 2:19:

 

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.

I think you're right when you say this but I think this verse is mis-applied (not by you but by "modern" xian interpretation). I think whatever sect "John" was a part of split and the "antichrists" mentioned within are those people that left. This is just slander and the letter a warning to the church(es) familiar with all the members to not welcome these heretics. The author mentions having the "spirit" to teach them all they need to know but proceeds to tell them all they should know anyway just so they can differentiate between the "right" (orthodox) view and the "wrong" (heterodox) view of the splinter group.

 

Or so that's how I see it. But like I said I think you're right in applying this as you did. Considering "apostate" is just "standing apart" and not "atheist" the group "John" speaks about being "apostate" don't have to surrender any beliefs in a "jesus" to qualify. Just "John's" beliefs (like Catholics and Protestants...some might say orthodox and gnostics but I'm not so sure about that).

 

Edit: The John 10 verses Deva mentions are the ones I used to reference as a xian for OSAS.

 

mwc

[ShackledNoMore]

My name is in that book of life, and apparently it's far beyond me to get Jesus to erase the darned thing!

The initial request to be added to the list may be done orally but to be removed you have to submit your request in writing.

Not only that, it gets worse: it's painful and unfashionable. The request has to be written on your forehead, tattooed on, and read "666."

[Roan7995]

Any time my dad and i talk religion, he tells me that my feelings will constantly change. I never want to hear that. I like to be decisive. He says there's no way the world can exist without god. I don't know what to say to that ... only that so far it seems to be doing just fine. I have not been called a liar yet ... I think my family is fortunately understanding enough of the ephemeral temperament of a human.

[mwc]

Any time my dad and i talk religion, he tells me that my feelings will constantly change. I never want to hear that. I like to be decisive.

You sound young. Your dad is right. But only that your feelings will change. Apparently your dad failed to notice your feelings did change while his did not...as did you. If this hadn't happened you couldn't very well be an ex-c could you? Basing your decisions on evidence and probability seems reasonable but that means you have to be open to change. Like it or not.

 

mwc

[Snafutopia]

I was never really subjected to this sort of thing, perhaps because in my part of Australia we don't take religion as seriously as some Americans do. However I have some explanations as to why it happens. The first lies in an old catholic saying I first heard in boarding school many years ago:

 

There is no greater heretic, no greater infidel, than one of the faithful that has fallen into error!

 

And if one thinks about it, a lot of politicians subscribe to that theory too; although they may express it in totally unprintable language. Many criminals also think like that, especially those who belong to organized criminal families. Basically, no one likes turncoats, hence the shunning, the cold shoulder or "silent treatment", and/or the accusations of lying. These things, I suppose, arise out of a part of human nature that says, "If I go down, I'm not going alone, you're coming along for the ride!" That the loyalty is misplaced in this instance makes no difference whatsoever.

 

The second reason is the old "No true Scotsman" fallacy. That's thought to have started when some Scotsmen were discussing a terrible lust murder that had happened in England. The press was full of the lurid details of the crime and one fellow was heard to say, "No Scotsman would hae done sich a thing!" Right then another happened to recall a certain Peter Manuel who had been hanged not long prior for just such a crime, one of many so the authorities said, and they were almost certainly correct. Manuel was a Scot as it happened.

 

The answer to this was, "Aye, but he wasnae a true Scotsman!" In other words, there are some groups of people who think that they, as a group, are better than the rest of humanity. Thus any member of such a group is held to be automatically incapable of doing certain acts, whether such an act be a crime or something as simple as leaving the group. If a group member does such a thing despite all expectations to the contrary, then the group's reaction to this is denial, hence the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You can substitute the words, "No true christian" and it holds the same meaning.

 

One last observation. Jesus spoke of his followers being like sheep many times. Sheep hang together in groups known to us as "mobs". It sometimes happens that an individual sheep becomes fly-blown, or a number of sheep become fly-blown. However such animals are easily spotted even in large mobs, because the sheep which are not fly-blown will actually force the afflicted animals to the tail (rear) of the mob. Thus, if you have a dog that knows its business, it's easy enough to cut out such an animal and capture it so that it may be treated. Once it is treated, its mob will accept it again. We may then suppose christians to act in very similar ways when one of their number becomes fly-blown, so to speak, although they won't necessarily accept their former believer again.

 

Just some thoughts, hope they're not too silly.

Casey

 

 

Casey this is brilliant and helps me understand a bit better.

[Snafutopia]

Maybe I just never really understood what they meant when they talked about the doctrine of "once saved always saved."

 

All these years I thought they meant, "Jesus saves you, and nobody -- not even you yourself -- can unsave you."

 

According to that interpretation, you might stop believing but you'll never stop being saved.

 

You see what I mean? This is what I thought they meant.

 

But obviously some of them don't mean that at all.

[PocketAces]

Has anyone been accused of being a liar because they left the faith? As some of you know, I was once a Baptist minister and even served as a missionary on the foreign field. Most people from Baptist circles believe in the doctrine of "once saved, always saved". This means that if someone comes into a genuine relationship with Christ (saved) then they can do nothing to lose their salvation. I was "saved" back in 1991. As a result of my fairly recent de-conversion, some that have known me in the past are now attacking me and claiming that I have "always" been a liar. They believe that a honest to goodness believer could never lose their salvation and, as a result, I must have been faking it for the last 17+ years!

 

Let me see ... I gave up the potential of lucrative jobs to serve in the ministry. I left the my own country (the USA) which I love and fought for as a Marine and went to another country (one in which there were numerous terror attacks, mind you) to help a church there and to spread the Gospel, leaving my extended family behind and all that I knew ... because I was FAKING IT!

 

Now, if I had been one of these Benny Hin types and was making a fortune, then I can see someone saying that. In fact, if I was someone who was living a lie for the last 17+ years and I was living like Benny Hin, then I probably would not mind keeping the lie going. After all, it would be a very lucrative lie, would it not?

 

Has anyone else had these types of accusations? Have people just been confused about your de-conversion? Did they just try to ignore you? Or did some try to accuse you of various things? I'm curious.

 

no one has called me a liar, but i did have a friend that denied me being atheist after i told him i was. he hasn't spoken to me since our last debate.

 

i consider the insecurity of being a Christian. someone who falls away from what makes them happy must have never been a true believer in the first place. bullshit i think but it seems like the insecurity of being a Christian in the "world" as far as i'm concerned.