How and why did you reject christ?

[QuestioningMind]

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

Did you have a conversation with him (if you had a genuine relationship with christ before) and told me hey, see ya? or had a deep talk of departure?

If you had a genuine relationship with the christian god directly, the same questions.

Many people reject christianity, but I'm wondering if they had a relationship with christ, how did they reject christ and/or his god. There is a difference.

For me, I never had a relationship with christ's father. Never believed he existed. Christ, I can kinda understand, because he was a human flesh and blood. That, and I do believe in spirits (say of my loved ones), so this wasn't too hard to "get." The more I worshiped, the less I worshiped. It was an intense feeling of "this isn't right for you." Then I say and thought about what my priest said to me before I went to RCIA. "Maybe you should wait." Now, if Churches want you to come to church and be saved, what priest would ask you to wait first?

So, however you define it, I said in so many words "hey, jesus. I know you're important to people. I can't believe in human sacrifice. (I feel its wrong to worship 'you' as a person/flesh/however defined). This is my last actual Mass.

That's it.

I'm more open than most since I really have nothing to hide about my spiritual life. I did read a native american quote (I posted it somewhere). The author of this book asked her chief if she can use his words in her book. He says, "Of course you can use them. They are not my words, but of god". (Context please)

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

After reading through some of the comments I think you need to define what you mean by 'reject'. You seem to be defining it as 'rejecting Christ as your savior.' Whereas I think most respondents define it as 'rejecting the notion that Christ is real'.

So when you ask 'if you had a genuine relationship with Christ' the answer becomes 'I deluded myself into THINKING I had a genuine relationship' because it's impossible to have a genuine relationship with someone who doesn't exist.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So you have a bias; you're beginning with the assumption that one of the central recorded events isn't true, based simply on your preconceptions.



Recorded what? That this small Jewish cult surrounding some Rabbi from the middle of nowhere believed he was the Messiah? There were all kinds of Messianic claims being made in those times; why would they have taken this one any more seriously than the others?



They didn't have internet back then - they didn't even have motorized vehicles. News spreads slowly. Why would you expect everyone in the rest of the world to know about this event that a small group of people in a small village claimed to have witnessed?

So you have a bias; you're beginning with the assumption that one of the central recorded events isn't true, based simply on your preconceptions.

Anyone with even a modicum of logic and reason has a bias against fantastical claims for which there is no evidence. I would HOPE that you have a bias against my mere claim that I have a magical invisible dragon in my garage. Unless you automatically accept every single fantastical claim ever made, you have to have a bias against fantastical claims that have no verifiable evidence to back them up.

 

[izzy88]

Unless you automatically accept every single fantastical claim ever made, you have to have a bias against fantastical claims that have no verifiable evidence to back them up.

This is a false dichotomy, and, like the rest of what you said, it misrepresents the issue at hand.

To say "it didn't happen because I've already decided that it's impossible" is not the same as saying "I've concluded that it most likely didn't happen because I've examined the evidence and found it wanting." The former is irrational and biased; the latter is logical and responsible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't like how the question is framed, as if ex-Christians made a conscious decision to "reject" Jesus. Personally, I just lost my faith in it. I could no longer bring myself to believe in it. I also felt rejected by my parish during a time of need, so that opened my eyes more to how fake the people at my parish were. I was already disagreeing with Catholicism's idiotic and hurtful teachings about sex and LGBT people, but I found myself no longer believing in the theology itself. It doesn't square with reality in my eyes, whereas I find that an animistic, pantheistic, polytheistic worldview suits my observations of the world much better.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is a false dichotomy, and, like the rest of what you said, it misrepresents the issue at hand.

To say "it didn't happen because I've already decided that it's impossible" is not the same as saying "I've concluded that it most likely didn't happen because I've examined the evidence and found it wanting." The former is irrational and biased; the latter is logical and responsible.

Nope, no false dichotomy here.

The only 'evidence' you have is that it's written in a book. If I've read the book then I've examined the 'evidence' and found it VERY wanting. Just like the only 'evidence' you have for my dragon is that I claim to have one. You've heard my claim. Hopefully after examining by 'evidence' you also found it wanting.

 

[izzy88]

The only 'evidence' you have is that it's written in a book.

Is that what you believe about all of our other historical records, on which we base virtually everything we claim to "know" about history?

 

[izzy88]

I was already disagreeing with Catholicism's idiotic and hurtful teachings about sex and LGBT people

Calling something that you don't understand "idiotic and hurtful" isn't very prudent.

If you had actually read the theology, you may very well disagree with it, but you wouldn't find it idiotic or hurtful because it isn't.

Can you explain to me how you understand the theology behind the Church's teaching on sexuality? Explain it as if you're trying to teach it to me.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is that what you believe about all of our other historical records, on which we base virtually everything we claim to "know" about history?

Virtually any historical claim worth accepting has more than one verifiable source. And the further back we go in history the greater the chances are that our perceptions of history are wrong. For instance, there are several sources that claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC. Chances are that he probably did cross it then. At least it's certainly POSSIBLE that an army led by Caesar crossed that riven in that year. But even if he didn't cross in that year or maybe didn't even cross at all, it really doesn't effect my life in the least.

Now if the history books claimed that in 49 BC Caesar and his men all sprouted wings and flew crossed the Rubicon on a blazing river of fire THAT would require far more evidence than the claim that he crossed in it in a conventional manner. Even if there were several sources from the time making the claim, it would still require more than that to get me to believe that Caesar was some supernatural being who could defy natural laws. In fact, if you can point out any fantastical supernatural incident that a valid history book claims actually happened, I'd love to have you share it with me.

So your suggestion that if I reject the fantastical claims made by your single source that I need to reject all claims made about history is just plain silly.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Again you are distorting what relationship means.

How so?

The word doesn't change religious or not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you have a bias; you're beginning with the assumption

That's not beginning with an assumption. Its a conclusionbased on the 200,000 some thousand years of human and early human history that death is still an undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns.

Recorded what?

A human returning to life. And the Bible doesn't say it happened once. All these resurrections would have been recorded when the occured. Not decades later.

They didn't have internet back then - they didn't even have motorized vehicles. News spreads slowly. Why would you expect everyone in the rest of the world to know about this event that a small group of people in a small village claimed to have witnessed?

Because word travels and spreads. How do you think European Christians learned that Muslims sacked Jerusalem and launched the Crusades as a response? No internet, no motor travel, but yet peole still knew.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've never been too clear on how Christians - especially non-trinitarians - differentiate between the father and the son, and seem much more focused on the son, but that's not the thread topic.

More to the point, I find it interesting that you believed Jesus was god, but didn't believe he was the son of god, which, to my knowledge, is one of the core beliefs of most (if not all) Christian denominations. Why did you not believe in a godly father?

I didn't. I didn't believe his father existed and I was never a trinitarian. So, it made christian practice mute when the head guy was never in the picture. Some people keep to jesus by following his teachings even though they don't confess to be christian. I've never been attracted to jesus' teachings to put in my life. The bible is a good read but nothing I'd base my life on. So, it's not specifically "does god exist" but more if I believe X and christians believe Y, why be christian.

Thank you for asking

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Total lack of evidence

How did you reject him?

Did you know him beforehand and then rejected him or just the idea of him because of lack of evidence?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So when you ask 'if you had a genuine relationship with Christ' the answer becomes 'I deluded myself into THINKING I had a genuine relationship' because it's impossible to have a genuine relationship with someone who doesn't exist.

Its worded that way, about personal relationships with Christ, because thats what is taught to Christians. You can inserf your own perspective and assume it correct. In this instance it is wrong, and you have opened yourself up to numerous criticisms from Christians, notably your lack of understanding. But, I assure you, to those the question is intended the issue of a relationship with Christ is understood in proper context by us, no deluded or wonky stuff or splitting hairs needed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Calling something that you don't understand "idiotic and hurtful" isn't very prudent.

If you had actually read the theology, you may very well disagree with it, but you wouldn't find it idiotic or hurtful because it isn't.

Can you explain to me how you understand the theology behind the Church's teaching on sexuality? Explain it as if you're trying to teach it to me.

I was a very devout Catholic and almost became a monastic. Don't patronize me as if I didn't know my own religion. I wasn't raised Catholic. I converted to it in my late teens because I wanted to. I did a lot of studying and had much zeal. (I find it's usually the cradle Catholics who tend to be ignorant of the religion.)

I do not have to respect any teaching that doesn't respect me. If you don't like my bluntness abut it, feel free to ignore me. I'm already suspicious of your motives for interrogating everyone in this thread.

 

[izzy88]

Virtually any historical claim worth accepting has more than one verifiable source.

What makes a source "verifiable"? What are the criteria?

Now if the history books claimed that in 49 BC Caesar and his men all sprouted wings and flew crossed the Rubicon on a blazing river of fire THAT would require far more evidence than the claim that he crossed in it in a conventional manner. Even if there were several sources from the time making the claim, it would still require more than that to get me to believe that Caesar was some supernatural being who could defy natural laws.

All you're doing here is explicitly admitting to your own bias. Objectively, the content of a claim has no bearing on how much evidence is required to accept it; to say that different claims require different levels and amounts of evidence based on your personal preconceptions is not objective or rational.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, if the Invisible Superman in the Sky proved to me unambiguously that he existed and told me he would damn me if I cut ties with him, I'd probably keep at least some aspect of the relationship going, just to avoid pi$$ing him off. But he never unambiguously demonstrated his existence, so it would be inaccurate to say I "rejected" him.

Do people actually believe god is like an invisible superman in the sky?

How do you keep a relationship going (if you choose to) if he is silly like a superman in the sky?

How did you reject him?

Did you believe in him as real and then left because you found "he" was silly or did you leave because the idea was silly respite whether or not he existed?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is just riddled with misconceptions.

You have a harder time believing in the Father than in Christ, because you believe in spirits? The Father is the spirit, Christ is the man, so it should be the opposite, shouldn't it? If you believe in spirits, wouldn't the spiritual God be easier to believe in than a man who performed miracles and rose from the dead?

And the priest telling you he thinks you should wait to become Catholic is because you clearly don't actually believe in the things that you're required to believe as a Catholic. Why would you even want to join a religion you don't actually believe?

There's also no human sacrifice in Catholicism; there's a man voluntarily sacrificing his own life. To understand the fuller meaning of this event, you need a great deal of background on ancient Jewish culture, and the history of Israel and their rituals and beliefs.

Worshiping Jesus is also not worshiping a man, because his human nature is not the one we worship; we worship his divine nature, which simply coexisted with his human nature. He was both fully human and fully divine, according to the Church.

It's clear that you have an accurate understanding of virtually no aspect of the Catholic faith, which means you don't even know what it is you've rejected. That was the case with me when I left it behind as a teenager, yet after many years I've been lead back to it because I discovered that I had no idea what I was actually leaving behind. When I learned what the Church actually teaches, it all rang true for me based on everything I've learned and experienced in my life.

Clear point: I rejected christ because I do not believe his father existed. So there is no reason to believe in any part of jesus and the bible because the head guy has no place in my life and never has. I don't even KNOW what a god is.
I have no qwarms with god and never knew him from childhood to even form a valid opinion about him.

It was a premature jump to the christian faith.

So, what you're saying is very misplaced. Everything else you said, I have no clue where that all came from. Maybe it applies to some people but not me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

After reading through some of the comments I think you need to define what you mean by 'reject'. You seem to be defining it as 'rejecting Christ as your savior.' Whereas I think most respondents define it as 'rejecting the notion that Christ is real'.

So when you ask 'if you had a genuine relationship with Christ' the answer becomes 'I deluded myself into THINKING I had a genuine relationship' because it's impossible to have a genuine relationship with someone who doesn't exist.

If someone had a relationship with christ and rejected him (dismissed him for whatever reason) how did he or she did so?

Rejection as in dictionary definition.

The latter part is all I was wondering. I know everyone has their biases with god, christ, christianity, and the church but I never really had that and hoping the question wouldn't turn into whether god exists or not and their negative opinion of the idea of his existence in relation to the people who believe in it.

 

[izzy88]

Its a conclusionbased on the 200,000 some thousand years of human and early human history that death is still an undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns.

You're equivocating. The Bible does not talk about dead human beings naturally coming back to life; it talks about the omnipotent Creator using his power to bring dead people back to life. It would be, by it's very nature, a unique occurrence to which the laws of nature do not apply, so appealing to the laws of nature is irrelevant - it's not a valid argument.

And the Bible doesn't say it happened once. All these resurrections would have been recorded when the occured. Not decades later.

What are you basing this claim on?

Because word travels and spreads.

Yes; slowly. And we do, in fact, see that word spread around the world in the first couple centuries about these Christians and their claims; we have plenty of records talking about them.

 

[izzy88]

So, what you're saying is very misplaced.

Everything you just said confirms what I said...

Everything else you said, I have no clue where that all came from. Maybe it applies to some people but not me.

Got it.