How and why did you reject christ?

[Shadow Wolf]

LOL Which is PRECISELY my point. MANY people who have rejected Christ are NOT Apostates or believers.

Then it seems the question wasn't asked to you. Just because you weren't asked or are fortunate enough to not understand the definition and words doesn't mean there is a problem with the OP.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hopefully most do. Debating over the question rather than answer is pretty tiresome.

It is. Especially when those saying your question and definitions are flawed weren't asked,and make it obvious that are the ones who do not understand and are the ones with the problem regarding your question. I still stand by my statement that the meaning is clear and well understood by believers and apostates alike, particularly the apostates you asked.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You're not getting it.

Whether or not you or I personally believe a claim is irrelevant; we're talking about what it takes to verify a claim. If you want to believe one unverified claim over another unverified claim based on your own a priori, non-empirical reasoning, that's fine, but it doesn't tell us anything about the objective validity of the claims.

From an objective, empirical standpoint, the content of a claim has no bearing on the amount of evidence needed to verify it.

Let's take another look at your quote.

the content of a claim has no bearing on how much evidence is required to accept it

Notice that you used the word ACCEPT... in other words, the content of a claim has no bearing on how much evidence is required to BELIEVE it. So OBVIOUSLY belief in the claim is relevant. Now as for VERIFICATION, that is something that's purely subjective. I've had people tell me that they accept or believe that prayer really works and their verification is the fact that they prayed to get a new job they wanted and they got it. As far as THEY are concerned their acceptance or belief has been verified. NOT so for me.

So back to my examples. The contents of the claims are very different. In one a man rows a boat across a river in the other a man sprouts wings and flies across the river. What I would require as verifiable evidence to get me to accept or believe the first claim would be FAR less stringent than the evidence required for me to accept or believe the second claim.

the content of a claim has no bearing on the amount of evidence needed to verify it

Let's try again with a different example. I'll make two claims.

1. There is a force that causes objects like a rock in my hand to fall to the ground when I let go of it.
2. There is a force that causes objects like a rock in my hand to fall to the ground when I let go of it and it is a giant vacuum in the center of the Earth that sucks everything down.

According to you the content of these claims has no bearing on the amount of evidence needed verify them. Yet, the amount of evidence required to can verify claim #1 is to simply pick up a rock and let it fall. A far GREATER amount of evidence would be required to even come close to verifying claim #2.

 

[Harel13]

Thank you for asking questions, though.

Thank you for answering, and thank you for answering honestly.

 

[izzy88]

Notice that you used the word ACCEPT... in other words, the content of a claim has no bearing on how much evidence is required to BELIEVE it.

In the first line, which you quoted, I did indeed use the word "accept", but went on to clarify exactly what I meant by it - which was "verify", not "believe". You are attacking a straw man argument, and because of that I'm not going to continue this conversation.

But just one more thing...

Now as for VERIFICATION, that is something that's purely subjective.

You have it directly backwards; to verify means (from Merriam Webster):

"to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of"

Unless you believe that truth is subjective, in which case you likely have more irrational beliefs than anyone else on this forum.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then it seems the question wasn't asked to you. Just because you weren't asked or are fortunate enough to not understand the definition and words doesn't mean there is a problem with the OP.

Which is PRECISELY why I suggested that you might want to CLARIFY what you mean, so we know for whom you intended the question. If you had clarified in the beginning what you meant by being rejected then you wouldn't have had to bother with this exchange or many of the exchanges I've seen you have with others on this thread. Whether or not you see that as a problem is up to you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So you need to clarify that you mean people who believe in Christ but reject him as their savior and NOT people who reject the idea that Christ is real.

The question was for the former not the latter. It's understood by people with whom the question is appropriate.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In the first line, which you quoted, I did indeed use the word "accept", but went on to clarify exactly what I meant by it - which was "verify", not "believe". You are attacking a straw man argument, and because of that I'm not going to continue this conversation.

But just one more thing...



You have it directly backwards; to verify means (from Merriam Webster):

"to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of"

Unless you believe that truth is subjective, in which case you likely have more irrational beliefs than anyone else on this forum.

In the first line, which you quoted, I did indeed use the word "accept", but went on to clarify exactly what I meant by it - which was "verify", not "believe". You are attacking a straw man argument, and because of that I'm not going to continue this conversation.

Yes, I noticed that you altered the wording, which is why I responded to the second quote as well. Instead of claiming its straw man argument and ending the conversation, how about actually addressing what you wrote and my response to it?

Let's try again.

the content of a claim has no bearing on the amount of evidence needed to verify it

1. There is a force that causes objects like a rock in my hand to fall to the ground when I let go of it.
2. There is a force that causes objects like a rock in my hand to fall to the ground when I let go of it and it is a giant vacuum in the center of the Earth that sucks everything down.

According to you the content of these claims has no bearing on the amount of evidence needed to verify (or 'establish the truth, accuracy or reality of) them. Yet, the amount of evidence required to verify ( or establish the truth, accuracy or reality of) claim #1 is to simply pick up a rock and let it fall. A far GREATER amount of evidence would be required to even come close to verifying (or establishing the truth, accuracy or reality of) claim #2.

Based on this I would say that the content of a claim has SIGNIFICANT bearing on the amount of evidence needed to verify or establish the truth accuracy or reality of the claim.

So if your statement is true, please show me how you can establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of claim #2 with the the same amount of evidence required to establish the truth accuracy or reality of claim #1.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In the first line, which you quoted, I did indeed use the word "accept", but went on to clarify exactly what I meant by it - which was "verify", not "believe". You are attacking a straw man argument, and because of that I'm not going to continue this conversation.

But just one more thing...



You have it directly backwards; to verify means (from Merriam Webster):

"to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of"

Unless you believe that truth is subjective, in which case you likely have more irrational beliefs than anyone else on this forum.

You have it directly backwards; to verify means (from Merriam Webster):

"to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of"

And I know what the definition of verify is. The point you apparently missed is that what people consider to be valid verification can vary greatly between one person and another. Just because a lady who prayed for a job and got one thinks that establishes the truth accuracy and reality of prayer, does not make her acceptance true accurate or real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you had a personal relationship with Santa Claus and believed that you did, then, whenever time, you rejected it-how did you do so?

You just stop believing it and simultanously come to the conclusion that you have been wrong all along.
There's nothing more to it then that.

Sure, there's a psychological aspect of a sense of "loss" or some identity crisis thing or whatever. But that's really not the same thing.

Was it a clean break off?
Was it something that you waned off of?

If you are asking me personally, I wouldn't know, because I don't remember ever believing in santa.

Have there been things I believe which I then stopped believing? Sure. How was that? Not any different from any other mistake I made and subsequently realised as being mistaken, to be honest...

Then again, I tend (or try) not to be emotionally invested in my beliefs, because I see little point in doing that.
I'm quite aware that beliefs can be wrong / mistaken.

If you had a personal relationship with Santa, was it respectful to have some sense of closure?

This is the thing you don't seem to be understanding. There is no need for closure, because stopping to believe it, literally means that you come to the conclusion that there is nothing there to have any closure about.......................

It can be applied to anything. The topic is christ.

Sure, you can use the words and apply them to anything.
But the problem is that the words don't make sense.

I can ask you what purple tastes like and it grammatically would be a perfectly validly composed english sentence. But the actual meaning is senseless. One does not taste colors.

And one does not hold conversations with beings that one doesn't consider to be real.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You just stop believing it and simultanously come to the conclusion that you have been wrong all along. There's nothing more to it then that.

This is to those who "have" believed in christ (not the idea of him), and decided, for whatever reason, to reject him. How did they reject him?

Sure, there's a psychological aspect of a sense of "loss" or some identity crisis thing or whatever. But that's really not the same thing.

In context it is.

If you are asking me personally, I wouldn't know, because I don't remember ever believing in santa.

Have there been things I believe which I then stopped believing? Sure. How was that? Not any different from any other mistake I made and subsequently realised as being mistaken, to be honest...

This is for people who actually believed in santa and rejected him for whatever reason. How did they reject him? (using the analogy as the same question above)

Then again, I tend (or try) not to be emotionally invested in my beliefs, because I see little point in doing that. I'm quite aware that beliefs can be wrong / mistaken.

Ok. Everyone has different feelings about it.

This is the thing you don't seem to be understanding. There is no need for closure, because stopping to believe it, literally means that you come to the conclusion that there is nothing there to have any closure about.......................

It has nothing to do with stop believing. If you Know something is real, then you can't just "stop believing" in it. A few things can happen: you can realize what you knew was true is false-therefore, you rejected it. You can know what is true actually exist, and still reject it. Can't think of other reasons. Regardless these types of reasons, how did one reject.

If the person never believed to begin with and never had a relationship with what he had known is true, this question isn't for that person.

Sure, you can use the words and apply them to anything. But the problem is that the words don't make sense.

If it doesn't apply to you, it will not. You'd have to have a personal relationship with christ and "know" he existed in order to understand the question.

I can ask you what purple tastes like and it grammatically would be a perfectly validly composed english sentence. But the actual meaning is senseless. One does not taste colors.

It makes sense to those with whom the question applies.

And one does not hold conversations with beings that one doesn't consider to be real.

Then this question was not appropriate for you.

For example, I wouldn't answer a question if I had an experience with god because that doesn't apply to me. I can give an opinion of what I known, heard, and observed but I can't from personal testimony. If the person who asks for that personal experience with god was looking for someone who Actually had that experience, I would not answer their question.

There are a lot of OPs I turned down because even though the question made sense in and of itself, it did not apply to me. So, my personal investment in the question (and answers) would be a waste of time.

 

[Agnostisch]

Whatever the reasons why people reject Jesus Christ, their rejection has not disastrous consequences .

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

How I'd love to know what that term, "a genuine personal relationship" can apply to either a god or his son, neither of whom is ever actually present, and whose responses must be imagined.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How I'd love to know what that term, "a genuine personal relationship" can apply to either a god or his son, neither of whom is ever actually present, and whose responses must be imagined.

To a lot of people who rejected christ, actually believe the son and god where present in some way or form. For whatever reason (I'm asking for and how), they have rejected this. Some reasons may be realizing what they experience was a lie. Others have genuine relationships but find their heart pulls them somewhere else. They acknowledge their belief (or if they know, their knowledge) that god and christ is real, however, for whatever means, they decided to put their time and interest elsewhere.

Those who never believed in god or christ, don't believe they exist, and never had a personal actual relationship with christ wouldn't be able to answer this question.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To a lot of people who rejected christ, actually believe the son and god where present in some way or form. For whatever reason (I'm asking for and how), they have rejected this. Some reasons may be realizing what they experience was a lie. Others have genuine relationships but find their heart pulls them somewhere else. They acknowledge their belief (or if they know, their knowledge) that god and christ is real, however, for whatever means, they decided to put their time and interest elsewhere.

Those who never believed in god or christ, don't believe they exist, and never had a personal actual relationship with christ wouldn't be able to answer this question.

But that did nothing about answering my question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But that did nothing about answering my question.

I don't see a question mark (113)

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, the OP question seems to boil down to this: how do you go from goosebumps to godlesness?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't see a question mark (113)

One can, if one is paying attention, read an introductory phrase such as "how I'd love to know..." as suggesting a desire for an answer...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One can, if one is paying attention, read an introductory phrase such as "how I'd love to know..." as suggesting a desire for an answer...

Indirectness isn't something I can pick up outside of racism, rhetorical questions, and poetry. Question marks are always good just in case indirect statements can be miscued. Rephrase the question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which is PRECISELY why I suggested that you might want to CLARIFY what you mean, so we know for whom you intended the question. If you had clarified in the beginning what you meant by being rejected then you wouldn't have had to bother with this exchange or many of the exchanges I've seen you have with others on this thread. Whether or not you see that as a problem is up to you.

It is pretty clear. I understood it perfectly, immediately, no problems or issues 8n understanding it. Asking what was meant is one thing, deriding it as problematic and poorly approached amd defined is entirely different. Would you make these criticisms to those writing in science journals?