How and why did you reject christ?

[amorphous_constellation]

Well, I read the bible and thought about it. The main point, I think, of the bible, is to attempt to describe certain concrete facts about human nature. Now where I think human nature can be crummy, the bible believes that the good in us is completely irretrievable. That left to there own designs, humans will form towns full of rapists, (even though I'm not even sure that anthropologists have discovered things like that) or perpetually be entrenched in war, jealously, murder, or any kind of sin that is said to be close to the root of where we all come from, and that according to the new testament, all of this must end in a flaming apocalypse of some kind. So the problem is, I am simply not that nihilistic. Yes I do believe we have some serious problems, and things aren't easy for us, but we aren't quite as cursed as the bible says. I also don't think that the experience of real spirituality is about certain beliefs or cultures, real spiritual experience does not address any of that.

 

[Nakosis]

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

So initially I did, not with Jesus but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was a presence, golden light comforter.

Sometimes it felt like a physical presence. Sometimes it was more like feelings or intuition which came to me. So I would ask questions, pray, get answers. Sometimes the answer would come as a vision/dream. Sometimes as an event/experience in life that would provide understanding.

So I really, desperately wanted to know the truth of things. So I asked, prayed, sought...

I think I had to learn a lot before I was ready for the answer.

Finally, the answer that I got was it doesn't matter what you believe. Religious belief is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you do, there is no judgment. You can live life however you wish with whatever goal or purpose or moral values you wish. This world/reality was created for us to simply experience the joy of existence.

We can do whatever we want, however we want for as long as we want. God has no requirements for us. We can return to, become one with God whenever we want. The problem is we don't believe this, don't accept it, always feel we are too imperfect. Don't consciously accept the possibility.

Since I learned that God has no requirements from us I ended up letting go fo all that unnecessary belief. No need to believe in any concept of God. No need to follow any religion. You can if you want to if it makes you happy but belief in God, belief in any religion is not required by God.

There is no punishment, no Hell except what we create for ourselves through our fears and doubts.

I suppose I needed the "Holy Spirit" to get me here but now that I am here I no longer need it.

 

[Harel13]

For me, I never had a relationship with christ's father. Never believed he existed.

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?

 

[Altfish]

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?

Total lack of evidence

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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?

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.

 

[izzy88]

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?

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.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

I didn't reject anybody. I don't even know that he existed, and if he did, I have no way of verifying he id who his devotees say he is.

 

[izzy88]

I didn't reject anybody. I don't even know that he existed, and if he did, I have no way of verifying he id who his devotees say he is.

So, do you believe we have no way of verifying anything in recorded history, then?

 

[izzy88]

and that according to the new testament, all of this must end in a flaming apocalypse of some kind.

It's only a minority of fundamentalist evangelicals who believe that; the majority of Christians believe that Revelation is virtually all symbolic imagery.

 

[izzy88]

Because he doesn't fit the prophecies he's supposed to have.

Can you cite these prophesies, or at least a few of them?

 

[Rival]

Can you cite these prophesies, or at least a few of them?

I can but I'm not going to wreck this thread with them as it's not the topic. I'll link a post of mine with them.

What do Jews find strange about Christianity and why.​

 

[Milton Platt]

So, do you believe we have no way of verifying anything in recorded history, then?

No. I did not say that. Pleas don't straw man me.

 

[izzy88]

I can but I'm not going to wreck this thread with them as it's not the topic. I'll link a post of mine with them.

What do Jews find strange about Christianity and why.

Much appreciated.

 

[Tambourine]

I never even met the guy. He died long before I was born.

 

[izzy88]

No. I did not say that. Pleas don't straw man me.

Calm down, man. It was a question; a question is not a straw man.

So, if you believe we have ways of verifying whether other historical records are accurate, why do you believe that the is not possible for the documents that compose the New Testament?

 

[Milton Platt]

Calm down, man. It was a question; a question is not a straw man.

So, if you believe we have ways of verifying whether other historical records are accurate, why do you believe that the is not possible for the documents that compose the New Testament?

Sure, we can verify that someone wrote down the things in the Bible stories. We cannot determine the veracity of any of the supernatural claims in the stories, or that Jesus was the son of a god.

However, to be clear....if we could determine that all of the supposed miracles happened, it still does not demonstrate that a god exists. It just demonstrates that in the distant past, the universe sometimes behaved in an u nsual way that we can't explain.

And it was a back handed straw man. You were suggesting that I held a position that I did not. If you want to ask a question about what I believe, that's fine....but don't try to frame my beliefs in the question.

 

[izzy88]

Sure, we can verify that someone wrote down the things in the Bible stories. We cannot determine the veracity of any of the supernatural claims in the stories, or that Jesus was the son of a god.

However, to be clear....if we could determine that all of the supposed miracles happened, it still does not demonstrate that a god exists. It just demonstrates that in the distant past, the universe sometimes behaved in an u nsual way that we can't explain.

So, your original claim that there's no way to verify if these records are accurate isn't actually true, then; you simply aren't interested enough to do the research and find out how much of the records have been verified and how well supported they are - to look into what biblical scholarship says in terms of the evidence and the arguments. Is that accurate?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was overall very miserable, tearing myself apart struggling with and being tormented by my identity. Add in further problems in life and while I was going through a particularly hard time, having vivid nightmares of being sent to Hell, I turned to the Bible for guidance.
I also have to mention that before this time I was back in public school, for highschool, back during my sophomore year. This got me outside of the ultra insular and highly censored world I knew, and in classes such as world history, English, and science I began learning things that contradicted what the church told me, and learned the OT is more or less plagiarized from other and earlier sources.
Next is when things start to sound more like the NIN song Terrible Lie. Christianity was all I knew up to that point. I remember sitting in church, not paying attention to the sermon, but instead doing my own reading, looking for answers, looking for guidance, looking for the love they do often talk about. But all I found was hatred, violence, and blood shed. I needed someone to lean on, but all the Bible revealed to me was the intolerance, hatred, and a god who like so many other people seemed more willing and eager to judge me than love me. And eventually I did give it all up. I renounced the Trinity and plucked myself from Christ's flock. Amd fortunately, unlike others who left, I haven't looked back, second guessed my choice, amd leaving ended all of my fears, anxieties, and nightmares about angering god and going to hell.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Calm down, man. It was a question; a question is not a straw man.

So, if you believe we have ways of verifying whether other historical records are accurate, why do you believe that the is not possible for the documents that compose the New Testament?

Because dead people don't come back to life, and because people then weren't stupid and there were plenty enough literate peole that had it happened the Romans most definitely would have recorded it. The Jews would have recorded it. Many others as well, throughout the West, East, and Near East would have been curious an have recorded it.

 

[izzy88]

Because dead people don't come back to life,

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.

because people then weren't stupid and there were plenty enough literate peole that had it happened the Romans most definitely would have recorded it.

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?

Many others as well, throughout the West, East, and Near East would have been curious an have recorded it.

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?